1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. Each land listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant land”) was determined and publicly announced as an urban planning facility (park) by the public notice of the Ministry of Construction on January 6, 1968. On December 23, 1983, the park building plan related to the instant land was determined and publicly announced by C by the public notice of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation on December 23, 1983.

B. Meanwhile, on the other hand, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the land No. 2 as indicated in the separate sheet No. 3 as of August 27, 1981, the registration of ownership transfer on the share of 2496 out of the land No. 3 as indicated in the same list as of December 7, 1981, and the registration of ownership transfer on the share of 1/2 out of the land No. 4 as indicated in the same list as of March 31, 19

C. On April 10, 1985, the Plaintiff obtained permission from the Defendant for an urban planning project (construction of park facilities) and completed the tennis on the instant land around January 20, 1986 (Announcement B of Seoul Special Metropolitan City) and operated it from around that time to August 7, 201.

On March 19, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for cancellation of the determination of urban planning facilities (park) with the content that the Plaintiff would request the Defendant to cancel the purchase compensation for the instant land or the determination designating the said land as a park site

(hereinafter “instant application”). On March 27, 2014, the Defendant sent a reply to the Plaintiff to the effect that “A long-term unexecution park site for which no urban planning facility project has been implemented falls under the object of compensation, but the Plaintiff is not entitled to compensation as the Plaintiff had already installed a tennis station and its affiliated facilities on the instant land in accordance with the urban planning project (construction of park facilities) and thus does not fall under the object of compensation, and in principle, it is difficult for the Defendant to cancel the designation of a park site on the grounds that it is promoting policies to expand parks and green areas

(See Evidence Nos. 4, hereinafter referred to as "the reply of this case"). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, Eul evidence No. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3 respectively, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Judgment on the defendant's main defense

A. The defendant.