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

1. Review of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, cited by the lower court as a summary of the case, and the records reveals the following circumstances.

On December 5, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition to approve the housing construction project plan (hereinafter “instant project plan approval disposition”) pursuant to Article 15 of the Housing Act and Article 30 of the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act with respect to the new construction work of a district housing association in the area of 64,718 square meters which is implemented in the 64,718 square meters of Seoul-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City for the Defendant’s Intervenor

(E) However, the above notice contains an “decision on urban management planning under Article 30 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”) as one of the matters deemed to have been subject to the disposition of the project plan in this case, but there was no separate topographic map for the determination of the urban management plan.

B. On December 12, 2016, the Defendant rendered a decision on the astronomical Management Planning (Modification) and the publication of the topographic Map.

(G) The above public notice letter states that a buffer green belt with a total size of 4,615 square meters in size is newly created in order to prevent traffic noise and to secure a buffer space on the H side of the Dong-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City, and the attached topographical map states that D large scale 660 square meters in size (hereinafter “instant land”) owned by the Plaintiff is included in the above buffer green belt site in the attached topographical map.

C. On March 10, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking revocation of “the part concerning the instant land” among the “Determination (Modification) of the astronomical Management Plan (amended) dated December 12, 2016” (hereinafter “decision of this case”).

2. The lower court determined that the instant lawsuit was unlawful on the following grounds. A.

The public notice of the approval of the project plan of this case is an infrastructure under Article 19 (1) 5 of the Housing Act.