1. The Defendant’s rejection of permission to extend the retention period of a temporary building against the Plaintiff on December 31, 2012 is revoked.

2.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is an owner of Yeonsu-gu Incheon Metropolitan City B 49,586 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. On February 9, 1970, the Defendant determined that urban planning facilities are installed in the instant land, etc. at the time the Ministry of Construction and Transportation publicly announced the construction volume of urban planning facilities to the Plaintiff as public waters at the time of construction volume announcement, and publicly announced the determination of urban planning facilities.

The instant building was permitted to construct a temporary building (a container 1,941.6 square meters, 5,406.9 square meters, hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant building”) on the instant land, which is a site.

C. On October 10, 201, the Mayor of Yeonsu-gu Incheon Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant project”) issued a public notice of approval for the development plan for a tourist complex (hereinafter “instant public notice E”) with a project site consisting of a project site of the Yeonsu-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Yeonsu-gu, Incheon, which includes land owned by the Plaintiff, with the project site of 907,380 square meters, and the main contents are as follows:

Project operator: The project period of the Incheon Tourism Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "Seoul Urban Corporation"): From the date the approval of a development plan is publicly announced to December 30, 2018: Public convenience facilities, such as roads, tourist information centers, parking lots, etc. / Lodging facilities / commercial facilities / sports amusement facilities (public golf courses), / Other facilities/greens, such as recreational cultural facilities, such as bathing beaches, and camping grounds.

D. Following the instant public notice, the Plaintiff applied for the extension of the retention period of the instant building to the Defendant. On April 24, 2012, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the extension of the retention period of a temporary building and its retention period would not be possible in the future, on the condition that, in the event that the Plaintiff is ordered to restore the building to its original state by the management agency pursuant to Article 64(3) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”), the temporary building retention period should be voluntarily removed by no later than three months prior to the scheduled date of implementation of an urban planning facility project.

E. The plaintiff is above.