1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. On November 8, 2010, the Defendant’s forest E in Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-si with respect to the Plaintiffs on November 8, 2010

Details of the disposition

The Intervenor joining the Defendant, including the drafting of a plan for creating the urban park and the return of the participating administrative agency, etc., on July 4, 2007. However, the drafting proposal date of the Intervenor joining the Defendant is June 12, 2007, which was submitted by the participating administrative agency on July 4, 2007.

It is suggested that participating administrative agencies have formulated a plan for creating urban park with the contents of setting up a golf driving range, etc. as park facilities in the Seongbuk-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City K (hereinafter referred to as the “instant site”) located in H as a development restriction zone.

However, on July 10, 2007, the participating administrative agency rejected the Defendant’s drafting proposal for the Intervenor on the ground that the instant site located within a development restriction zone based on the provisions of Article 13(1) [Attachment Table 1] 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones (hereinafter “Development Restriction Zones Act”) cannot establish a golf practice range, and that there is no infrastructure (commercial and sewerage) on the instant site, it is difficult to grant a building permit or access road is a forest land, and therefore it is difficult to review it separately.

Accordingly, the Intervenor brought a lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition rejecting the proposal for drafting park facilities as Suwon District Court 2007Guhap11741, and the above court held that Article 13(1) [Attachment 1] [Attachment 7] of the Enforcement Decree of the Development Restriction Zone Act, which was enforced on June 25, 2008, stipulates that “facilities installed within urban parks and green areas under the Act on Urban Parks and Green Areas,” which are exceptionally permitted to be installed in development restriction zones, are “facilities for making use of leisure by Do citizens,” and that the above park facilities include a golf practice range, which is a sports facility, and thus, the Defendant’s Intervenor’s claim against the Intervenor is erroneous, on the grounds that a development restriction zone designated as an urban park can be installed in