1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Case history

A. On April 8, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an application to occupy and use an urban park with the following content (hereinafter “instant application”).

The purpose of occupation and use and the area of a road to enter a building subject to occupation and use: From the date of permission for occupation and use of 124 square meters from the date of December 31, 202 to December 31, 202

B. On April 22, 2019, the Defendant, on the Plaintiff, planned the instant application as a green belt on the park building plan. As such, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that permission for urban occupancy is not possible because it conflicts with Article 24(2)1 of the Act on Urban Parks, Greenbelts, Etc. (hereinafter “Urban Park Act”) (hereinafter “instant notification”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1-1, 2, and 3

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion does not intend to build facilities or buildings, etc. other than park facilities in the instant application site, but merely intends to use a passage already installed on the instant application site for the purpose of entering and departing from the Seo-gu, Seowon-gu, Seowon-gu.

Therefore, the instant notification to the effect that permission to occupy and use the instant application is impossible is unlawful.

3. We examine ex officio the determination as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit, whether the instant notice constitutes a disposition that is subject to appeal litigation.

A. In order for an administrative agency to have refused an application for active action by a relevant law citizen to constitute an administrative disposition that is subject to appeal litigation, the applicant’s filing of the application must be an exercise of public authority or an equivalent administrative action, and the refusal should cause any change in the applicant’s legal relationship, and the citizen should have the right to request the action in accordance with the relevant law or sound reasoning.

Supreme Court Decision 200