1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. On October 4, 2010, the Defendant’s project implementer for a park project against the Plaintiff.

1. The facts under the circumstances of the disposition do not conflict between the parties, or may be acknowledged with Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3-1 to 3, Gap evidence Nos. 4-2, 6-8, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 15, and witness N of the first instance trial by integrating the whole purport of the pleadings.

The Plaintiff owns 16,984 square meters of D Forest in Seopo-si, Seopo-si, located in the B Park Development Project District in Seopo-si, Seopo-si, Seopo-si (hereinafter “instant land”), E, E, 7,213 square meters, F,086 square meters, G field 4,388 square meters, etc. The said land is most designated as an absolute conservation area or a relative conservation area, and is designated as a neighboring park district under the Seopo-si Urban Management Plan.

B. The defendant has formulated and promoted the B Park development project plan as follows. In that process, the plaintiff requested the defendant to submit the project plan on February 10, 2009 and submitted the B Park development project plan to the defendant on the 13th of the same month.

B Park creation plan services on August 26, 2008 (work on February 4, 2010) from March 17, 2009 to February 17, 2009

3. 31. Deliberation of the Urban Planning Committee on April 13, 2009 on the pending report of the Environmental City Committee of the Provincial Council on April 13, 2009 - Reporting on the progress of change of park building plan services on January 22, 2010.

C. After that, on February 10, 2010, the Defendant changed the existing Seopo City Urban Management Planning (Urban Planning Facilities: Green Park) with respect to B parks and publicly announced a topographic map accordingly, and then the same year.

6.3. Public notice of the Seopopopo City of Seopopopo City, pursuant to Article 86 of the former National Land Planning and Utilization Act (amended by Act No. 9982, Jan. 27, 2010; hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”), the designation of the operator of an urban planning facility project that designates the Plaintiff as the project implementer of an urban park development project (hereinafter “project implementer of this case”) in the instant land as follows pursuant to Article 86 of the same Act:

(hereinafter referred to as “instant project implementer’s designation”).