1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Defendant is an implementer of a B-district urban development project (hereinafter “instant project”) implemented with a land substitution method, and the Plaintiff is the owner of a 942m2 and D 390m2 (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. On December 24, 2009, the instant project was a project for which the designation and development plan of an urban development zone was established by the notification of the Gyeongnam-do on December 24, 2009, and thereafter there were changes in the designation authority of an urban development zone due to the changes in the population of the Kimhae-si (e.g., the F (e., July 5, 2012), G (e.g., September 27, 2012), H (O. 17, 2013), I (O. 29 January 29, 2014), the designation of an area (a development plan) and authorization of an implementation plan (a modification)

C. On March 5, 2012, the Defendant obtained authorization of a land substitution plan from the Kimhae market on August 1, 2012 through a public announcement of the land substitution plan (designation of land substitution plan) on March 5, 2012. On August 10, 2012, “Public announcement of the designation of land substitution plan for the urban development project in B district” was made, and on the same day, notified the Plaintiff of the designation of land substitution to be designated by J (land substitution area 993 square meters) within the instant project

(hereinafter referred to as "disposition of this case"). / [Grounds for recognition] / Each entry in Gap's Evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, and Eul Evidence Nos. 1 and 6 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. On August 10, 2012, the Defendant: (a) notified the Plaintiff of the result of the instant disposition; and (b) notified the Plaintiff of the result of the instant disposition; and (c) accordingly, the Plaintiff was aware of the fact of the instant disposition; (b) accordingly, the instant lawsuit filed on May 12, 2014 exceeds the period for filing the lawsuit and asserted it as unlawful; (c) as long as the Plaintiff amended the purport of the instant disposition on April 16, 2015, seeking confirmation of invalidity of the instant disposition, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit, without having to further examine it.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. The purpose of Article 28(3) of the Urban Development Act is to be adequate for the land substitution plan, liquidation, etc.