1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 1, 2002, the Defendant: (a) determined an urban planning facility project pursuant to Article 43(1) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning and Utilization Act”); (b) on March 12, 2014, pursuant to Article 86(5) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act; and Article 96(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, designated the Plaintiff as the implementer of the instant project (hereinafter “instant project”).

B. According to the designation of the instant project implementer, Article 97(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the National Land Planning Act provides that the application for authorization of the implementation plan concerning the instant project shall be filed within six months from the date of designation of the project implementer (by September 1, 2014), and on September 5, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for authorization of the implementation plan concerning the instant project with the Defendant pursuant to Article 88 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “the first application”).

C. However, on October 1, 2014, the Defendant demanded the Plaintiff to supplement the instant first application by November 28, 2014 (a prior implementation of administrative procedures, such as authorization permission, supplement of financing plan, review of facility safety, etc.). The Plaintiff filed an application for extension extension of the period for supplementation on November 28, 2014 and January 28, 2015, but withdrawn the instant first application on April 2, 2015.

On June 12, 2015, the Plaintiff asked the Defendant at the time to re-application for authorization of the implementation plan for the instant project, and the Defendant sent a reply as follows (hereinafter “instant reply”) on July 9, 2015.

At the time of determination of changes in the conditions of remaining parks, such as the exclusion of parks due to the expansion plan of a new national industrial complex, a plan to review and deal with administrative procedures, such as park building plan (change) and authorization of implementation plan, at the request of the implementer.

E. On May 16, 2017, the Plaintiff again raises objection to the Defendant.