1. The Plaintiff is the Act on the National Land Planning and Utilization of Songpa-dong, Songpa-gu, Seoul, 915-0 56,23 square meters to the Defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 21, 2006, the Minister of Construction and Transportation designated and publicly announced the members of the Dong Dong Dong Dong-dong, Sungnam-si, Changdong-dong, Hanam-si, and Hanam-si, as a planned area for housing site development under Articles 3 and 7 of the Housing Site Development Promotion Act (Notice of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 2006-272), and on August 5, 2008, the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs approved and publicly announced the designation and alteration of the planned area for housing development and the housing site development plan (No. 2008-393 of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs notice), and changed the name of the planned area for housing development into the "scheduled area for housing site development."

B. On January 6, 2010, pursuant to Articles 8 and 9 of the Housing Site Development Promotion Act, the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs changed the name of the said development plan to “the housing site development project for the memorial district” (hereinafter “instant project”), and approved and publicly notified the instant project implementation plan (the first phase).

(Public Notice of Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs No. 2009-1423)

In the process of implementing the instant project, the Plaintiff, as the project implementer of the instant project, purchased or expropriated the existing Songpa-gu public truck depot located in Songpa-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Do 869, and created a 915-0 tea 56,233 square meters (hereinafter “instant garage”), which is the land for the public truck according to the instant land use plan. The Plaintiff and the Defendant had different opinions as to whether the instant garage constitutes “public facilities” gratuitously reverted to the Defendant.

On May 26, 2016, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into an agreement on the project for the creation of a new truck depot on the part of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (hereinafter “Agreement”). Article 3(2) of the Convention provides that whether the instant garage is gratuitously reverted shall be adjusted through mutual agreement and if the agreement is not reached smoothly, it shall be based on legal judgment.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful