1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part arising from the supplementary participation.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance that cited this case is identical to the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal as follows, and thus, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

7 pages 2 of the judgment of the first instance court, "the ownership of another person" shall be "F of the representative director of the plaintiff and his children G, Ha, Ha, and Ha I".

(b) 2 pages 2, 9, 9, 11, i.e., “The Gimpo City” to “the Gimpo City,” as follows:

On August 26, 2010, pursuant to Article 17 and Article 18 of the Urban Development Act, the Defendant’s Intervenor approved an implementation plan regarding the implementation of an urban development project with the following contents within a total of 710,870 square meters of the land area of the D Day, including the instant factory site, Kimpo-si.

(c) by adding “in accordance with Articles 28 and 29 of the Urban Development Act” to “in accordance with Article 28 and 29 of the Urban Development Act” following the last two pages of the first instance judgment.

The first instance court's three pages 1 and 2 shall be dismissed as follows.

On September 5, 2012, pursuant to the former part of Article 35(1) of the Urban Development Act, the instant factory site was designated as an area reserved for replotting, and as at the time, the Plaintiff did not separately designate an area which is the object of the Plaintiff’s right of lease among the area reserved for replotting as the lessee of the instant factory site pursuant to the latter part of Article 35(1) of the Urban Development Act.

(e) On 3 pages 3 of the first instance trial decision, the Defendant’s assistant intervenor added “in accordance with Article 65(2) of the Urban Development Act” and add “in accordance with Article 65(3) of the Urban Development Act” to “as of 3 pages 5, 2012.”

(f) by inserting three pages of the judgment of the first instance court [based on recognition] the phrase “each entry in the evidence (including paper numbers) of heading A1 to 4, 7 through 16,” respectively;

(g) by the first instance court Decision 4 pages 10, “Article 38(1)”, followed by “Article 65.”