1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant shall be revoked, and all the plaintiffs' claims corresponding to the revoked part shall be revoked.

1. The scope of the judgment of this court filed a claim for revocation of the rejection disposition against the land of paragraphs 1 through 11 of the attached Table 1, and the judgment of the court of first instance rejected the claim of the plaintiffs against the land of paragraphs 1 through 3, 5, and 11 of the attached Table 1, and dismissed the claim against the land of paragraph 4 of the attached Table 1 of the plaintiff A and B.

With respect to this, only the defendant appealed against him, and the plaintiff A and B did not appeal.

Therefore, the scope of this court's adjudication is limited to the rejection disposition of the plaintiffs' application for cancellation of public vacant land against the land in the attached Table 1 (1) through (3), (5) through (11), except for the land in the attached Table 1 (4) of the plaintiffs A and B.

2. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the disposition are the same as that of “1. The reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance”. Thus, this part of the reasoning is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' claim that the entire land of this case was designated as public vacant land, ① the personal appraisal of public officials belonging to Ulsan Metropolitan City was involved, ② the defendant requested cooperation from the Ulsan Metropolitan City Mayor to utilize the entire land of this case as public vacant land in terms of public interest purpose or necessity, ② the defendant himself recognized that there is no need for the public interest to utilize the entire land of this case as public vacant land, ③ the public vacant should be installed at a minimum for public interest purpose, ④ the defendant failed to establish a business plan, compensation plan, etc. for the entire land of this case for more than 16 years after the designation of public vacant land, ⑤ the disposition of this case was amended by Act No. 10599 on April 14, 2011; hereinafter referred to as the "Gu").