The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff, including expenses incurred by supplementary participation.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court in this case concerning the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following judgments to the invalid part of the disposition No. 2 of this case claimed by the plaintiff. Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence

2. Additional parts

A. The instant proposal submitted by the Intervenor’s consortium that: (a) only 144,768 square meters of a non-park facility site among 226,974 square meters; and (b) the remaining 82,206 square meters of a non-park facility site are to be sold to a single house site; (c) the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport responded to the purport that the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport cannot construct a single house on a non-park facility site; (d) any person other than an urban/Gun planning facility project implementer cannot construct a non-park facility site in a special development project under Article 21-2(1) of the Act on Parks and Greenbelts; and (e) any special project that supplies a non-park facility site to a third party after creating a non-park facility site; and (e) the Defendant changed the park building plan to delete the entire site from among the written project proposal by the Intervenor’s consortium on October 30, 2019, which was pending the first instance trial.

B. However, in light of the following circumstances that can be seen by comprehensively taking account of the structure and language of the relevant regulations, the statements Nos. 1, 8, and 9, and the circumstances surrounding the instant disposition No. 2, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have neglected the legal doctrine and rendered the instant disposition, even though there is no room for dispute over the construction of a housing site creation project at a non-park facility, inasmuch as the legal doctrine is apparent

Therefore, since the above illegal ground as to the second disposition of this case cannot be objectively seen as clear, the plaintiff's assertion that the second disposition of this case is null and void is without merit.

1. The Act on Parks and Greenbelts;