1. The plaintiff (appointed party)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party).

1. The reasoning for this court’s explanation concerning the above part is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the use of “(i)” in Part(3) of Part(4) of the Reasons for the judgment of the first instance as “B”, “(ii)” in Part(i) as “B”, and “(i)” in Part(ii) as “B”, and thus, it is identical to that of the judgment of the first instance. Thus, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the

2. The plaintiffs' assertion that the plaintiffs' assertion was made on March 9, 1993 by deceit or other unlawful means without raising a financing plan, and after obtaining permission to implement a park project on G district development project from among F Gun parks with a size of 12,730,215 square meters in Gyeonggi-si D and E, 12,730,215 square meters under Article 22 of the former Natural Parks Act, the plaintiffs who constructed accommodation facilities with permission to implement a park project on November 2, 1994 did not properly implement the project. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' claim that the permission to implement a park project on March 9, 1993 against the defendant's average leisure so that the permission to implement the park project should be revoked under Article 39 of the former Natural Parks Act. However, the plaintiffs requested the defendant to revoke the permission to implement the park project on March 24, 2014.

3. Determination on the legitimacy of a lawsuit

(a) If a citizen’s refusal of an administrative agency to refrain from an action following the citizen’s application for active action constitutes an administrative disposition that is subject to an appeal litigation, the applicant’s refusal shall be an exercise of public authority or an equivalent administrative action, and the refusal shall cause any change in the applicant’s legal relationship, and the citizen should have the right to request the citizen to refrain from such action in accordance with the relevant law or sound reasoning;

Supreme Court Decision 84Nu227 delivered on October 23, 1984 and Supreme Court Decision 84Nu227 delivered on April 23, 2003