The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daejeon High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The judgment of the court below

A. As to the Plaintiff’s proposal for modification of an urban management plan to change the specific use area of land to be newly incorporated in the site of extension and extension of golf courses, which are urban planning facilities, from the preservation management area and the agricultural and forest area, to the planned management area where sports facilities are installed in the agricultural and forest area (hereinafter “instant proposal for modification”), the Defendant rejected the instant proposal for modification on the ground that “the change of specific use area is inappropriate, and it is anticipated that excessive infringement on private property rights is anticipated to be infringed to the

B. The lower court, on the ground that: (a) it appears that the Defendant did not undergo the instant disposition despite the need to compare the Defendant’s legitimate benefits between the public interest to be compensated in the instant disposition and the construction benefits of golf course extension projects and other relevant construction benefits; (b) the feasibility studies on the instant proposal for conversion of mountainous districts and the verification results of land suitability assessment are recognized in most items; and (c) the Urban Planning Committee did not compare and review the instant proposal as conditional acceptances on the instant proposal; and (c) it appears unreasonable to conduct the instant disposition on the ground that it is difficult to view that the instant disposition was conducted on the ground that the Defendant did not have any right more than 80% of the Plaintiff’s site area without giving supplementary opportunity, i.e., the Plaintiff’s failure to secure more than 80% of the total site area; and (b) it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s determination whether to reflect the instant proposal into the Defendant’s formulation of the urban management plan, as well as the relevant public interest and private interests, and it is difficult to view that the instant disposition has abused or abused discretion.