1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning the instant case is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for modification or addition of a trial decision as follows. Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Details to be corrected or added;

A. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, “However, the site for the above general medical facility (M hospital) is an urban planning facility that has not been executed for a long time, while the land in this case is an urban planning facility that has already been developed as a general medical facility site and has already been executed after completion of development as a general medical facility site.” However, in the case of the above general medical facility (M hospital), the designation of the urban planning facility (general medical facility) is discontinued because it was not implemented as an urban planning facility (general medical facility) in the urban planning. On the other hand, in the case of the land in this case, the district unit plan of the former Housing Development Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 4429 of Dec. 14, 191) is already decided after completion of the housing site development project under the district unit plan (general medical facility site) in the urban planning (amended by Act No. 4429 of Dec. 14, 191) under Article 11 of the former Housing Site Development Promotion Act. Moreover, the district unit plan among urban planning projects is not required to be amended.

(b) add to the following judgments:

In the case of a party, the Plaintiff is expected to open 1,033 sickbeds in the vicinity of the instant land, and the need to install a general medical facility on the instant land has disappeared.