1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1.The following facts are found to be of no dispute between the parties or recognized by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 11 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply):

A. On June 3, 2009, pursuant to the former Special Act on the Construction of Bogeumjari Housing, etc. (Amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013; Act No. 12251, Jan. 14, 2014; hereinafter the same shall apply), the Plaintiff was designated as a Bogeumjari Housing District by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs No. 2009-276, Jun. 3, 2009; and the Plaintiff is an implementer of the "Dayangwon Housing Development Project" (hereinafter the "Projects of this case") approved by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs under Article 2009-935 of the Public Notice of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on September 28, 2009.

(b)where the area of each land as stated in the annexed sheet 1 to 3 is different from the area of each land as stated in the annexed sheet 1 to 3, only the area of land acquired at a cost.

(hereinafter referred to as “each land of this case”) is state-owned and public land in the project district of this case. At the time of approval of the district plan on the project of this case, each land listed in the separate sheet No. 1 was owned by the Republic of Korea, by the defendant Gyeonggi-do, and by the defendant Choyang-si, each land listed in the separate sheet No. 2 list No. 3

C. 1) After the designation of the project district of this case, the Plaintiff: (a) the Special Act on the Construction of Bogeumjari Housing, etc.; and (b) the former National Land Planning and Utilization Act (amended by Act No. 10580, Apr. 12, 201; hereinafter the same shall apply) to which the said Act applies mutatis mutandis.

The State-owned land listed in the separate sheet No. 1 to the defendant Goyang-si and the defendant Gyeonggi-do was owned by the defendant Republic of Korea, on the ground that the land constitutes the "public facilities in the future" as determined by the management agency, but the management agency was the ancient city.

A request for consultation on gratuitous reversion.