1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the 89-1 forest land in Daegu-gu, Daegu-dong, where the instant development plan was located within 1-3 construction sections, and the 89-3 large 326 square meters in total (hereinafter “each of the instant lands”).

B. On February 3, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a petition with the Defendant for designation of modification of the content of the rearrangement zone (hereinafter “instant application”). However, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit seeking confirmation that the Defendant’s omission was illegal on April 25, 2016.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 7, and Eul No. 8 (including virtual numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

A. The purpose of an administrative agency’s action for confirmation of illegality of omission under Article 4 subparag. 3 of the Administrative Litigation Act is to remove a passive illegal state of omission or non-compliance with an administrative agency’s response promptly by ascertaining that the omission is illegal if the administrative agency fails to take a certain measure within a considerable period of time despite the administrative agency’s legal obligation to make a request based on a party’s legal or sound right.

In this context, the reasonable period of time is not determined one day or uniformly, but the period required to deal with the application in question in light of social norms, comprehensively taking into account the nature of the disposition in question, contents, previous processing of the same kind of matter, provisions of relevant laws and regulations, etc., but it shall be determined in consideration of all the circumstances in concrete cases, and it is reasonable to interpret it at the time of closing of argument in

B. We see this case.