1. The plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation, are all the plaintiffs.

1. The grounds for admitting the judgment of the court of first instance, which the plaintiffs asserted in the trial while appealed, are not significantly different from the contents of the plaintiffs already asserted in the court of first instance, and the facts established and determined in the court of first instance and the whole purport of the evidence and arguments submitted in the court of first instance are recognized

Therefore, the reasoning of this court concerning this case is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following judgments, and thus, this court shall accept it in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the

2. Additional determination

A. The plaintiffs' assertion 1) The non-park facility project among the projects in this case, which lack the requirements for the registration of real estate development business, is a business that constructs apartment units on its site by changing the form and quality of land of 84,000 square meters. Thus, in order for the Intervenor to be designated as a project implementer of the project in this case, the real estate development business should be registered under the Act on the Management and Promotion of Real Estate Development Business. Since the Intervenor was not registered at the time of the instant disposition for designation of the project implementer,

B. Although the instant project is practically implemented by the Intervenor, who is a private business entity, the Intervenor’s sole implementation of the instant project, the Intervenor was deprived of the ownership area and the requirements for the landowner’s consent under Article 86(7) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, which should be met when the Intervenor’s sole implementation of the project

In addition, if non-park facilities are allowed pursuant to Article 21-2 of the Park Park Protection Act, it shall be interpreted that the private business operator is limited to the case where the private business operator independently implements the business such as building the urban park, and the park zone created by the local government and the private business operator in the case where the private business operator and