1. On June 8, 201 and June 20, 2011, the Defendant’s rejection of the application for designation of each project implementer against the Plaintiffs.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 5, 2009, the Defendant published an urban management plan (urban planning facilities: sports facilities) and a topographical map (Notice C of Incheon Metropolitan City) with respect to the construction of public golf courses with respect to the area of 717,000 square meters per day in Gyeyang-gu, Incheon (hereinafter “instant project site”).

B. The instant project site: (a) Plaintiff A owns 81,125 square meters (around 11%) on 48 parcel, 612,836 square meters ( around 87%) and 26 square meters on 24 parcel, including D; and (b) three persons, other than the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, own 18 parcel, 14,039 square meters ( around 2%) on State-owned and public land; and (c) 14 of the 26 persons, including D, planned by the Plaintiffs (hereinafter “instant project”).

(ii) consent is given.

C. On May 31, 2011, the Plaintiffs submitted to the Defendant an application for designation of the instant project implementer and an application for authorization of the implementation plan to the effect that “the designation as the joint project implementer of the instant project” was “the request was made. However, on June 8, 2011, the Defendant submitted to the Plaintiffs on June 8, 201, the former National Land Planning and Utilization Act (amended by Act No. 10599, Apr. 14, 201; hereinafter “former National Land Planning Act”).

The application is deemed to be a clerical error in Article 86 of this Act and Article 96(3)(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. Pursuant to the foregoing, the land equivalent to at least 2/3 of the area of the land (excluding State-owned land) subject to the project is not owned and thus the project operator’s qualification is inappropriate.

On June 16, 2011, the Plaintiffs submitted to the Defendant the instant application for designation of the project implementer and the instant application for authorization of implementation plan to the effect that “The Plaintiffs, a joint project manager, own the land corresponding to at least 2/3 of the area of the land subject to the project, and meet the requirements under relevant Acts and subordinate statutes.” However, on June 20, 201, the Defendant submitted the said application

was returned for the same reason as the paragraph.

F.

(c) and (d);

the return of each entry in the subsection shall be referred to as “each of the instant dispositions”

(i) [In the absence of dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap 2, 6, 7 evidence, Eul 2.