1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of 466m2 (hereinafter “instant land”) prior to C in Yancheon-si.

B. On December 1, 2008, the Defendant publicly announced the determination of an urban management plan, such as designating the E Il-won 429,512 square meters as district-unit planning zone as district-unit planning zone-based zone-based name “F,” as “A” as a district-unit planning.

However, since the district unit planning regarding the said district unit planning zone was not determined and publicly announced within three years from the date of the said public notice, the determination of the designation of the district unit planning zone with respect to the said F pursuant to Article 53 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”) became null and void at that time.

C. On January 21, 2014, the Defendant: (a) designated F as a district unit planning zone from among the invalidated district unit planning zones for systematic urban development following the extension of urban areas; (b) designated F as a district unit planning zone B on January 21, 2014; and (c) publicly notified as a district unit planning zone (However, its location and size appears to have been partially changed to G daywon 428,808 square meters; (d) publicly notified as a district unit planning zone; and (b) publicly notified the determination of the urban management plan (hereinafter “instant urban management plan”) by setting up an off-road parking lot at the day of the instant land owned by the Plaintiff; and (c) publicly notified topographic drawings pursuant to Article 32 of the National Land Planning Act; and Article 8 of the Framework Act on the Regulation of Land Use Regulation.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 6, 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. The Defendant’s instant lawsuit is unlawful since it was instituted after the period for filing the lawsuit expired.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

(c) Except as otherwise provided in the proviso of Article 20(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act, a suit seeking revocation is known.