1. The part of the request for revocation of designation of a project executor and the authorization of an implementation plan among the judgment of the first instance;

Facts of recognition

The following facts are acknowledged in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 5, 6, 9, 14, 20, Eul evidence Nos. 6 and 10 (including each number):

On November 15, 2007, the Defendant approved the housing construction project plan to set up a F apartment with approximately 85,400 square meters in size of 1,275 households in Namyang-si, E as a business site. At the time, the Defendant, including approximately 12,440 square meters in the above business site and the remaining neighboring green parks (hereinafter “existing neighboring parks”), was determined as the Class 1 district unit plan for approximately 113,80 square meters in size including approximately 12,440 square meters in the above business site and the above neighboring green parks (hereinafter “existing neighboring parks”).

On the other hand, at the time of June 30, 2009, three Plaintiffs and K and K non-real estate trust companies shared D forest land 38,048 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) located in HGun Park District in Nam-si, Nam-si, Namyang-si. The Plaintiffs’ shares were 1/4, respectively.

On October 15, 2009, the Defendant released a Gun Park District of approximately 224 square meters, including the instant land, on the grounds of the need to link the green axis with H Gun Park.

Then, on September 8, 2010, according to the Intervenor’s proposal for the drafting of the urban management planning on April 5, 2010, the Defendant determined and publicly notified (hereinafter “instant urban management planning determination”) that a new neighborhood park (hereinafter “instant neighborhood park”) was installed on a 14,013 square meters of the instant land, including 2,387 square meters of the instant land, instead of the previous neighboring park, on September 8, 2010.

The intervenor performed the construction work of the neighboring park in this case without obtaining the designation of the project implementer and the authorization of the implementation plan in accordance with the determination of the instant urban management plan.

On November 18, 2010, the Defendant issued a disposition to designate a project implementer according to the instant urban management planning decision as an intervenor and to authorize the implementation plan (hereinafter “instant designation approval disposition”).

On December 2, 2010, the intervenor completed the creation work of the neighboring park of this case.