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. Case history

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the 89-1 forest land and 839 square meters in Daegu-gu, Daegu-dong, where the instant development plan was located within 1-3 construction sections, and the 89-3 large 326 square meters in total (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant lands”).

B. The instant development plan was established in accordance with Article 20 of the former Housing Construction Promotion Act (wholly amended by Act No. 6916 of May 29, 2003) on July 20, 1979, and was officially announced as of April 13, 2002, and was maintained until now due to a partial revision.

C. On February 3, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a petition with the Defendant for designation of modification of the content of the rearrangement zone (hereinafter “instant application”). However, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit seeking confirmation that the Defendant’s omission was illegal on April 25, 2016.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 7, and Eul No. 8 (including virtual numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. A lawsuit for confirmation of illegality of omission under Article 4 subparag. 3 of the Administrative Litigation Act is a system with the purpose of removing a passive state of omission or non-compliance by promptly responding to an administrative agency by ascertaining that the omission is illegal if the administrative agency fails to comply with a legal obligation to respond to a request based on a party’s legal or sound right, such as affirmative disposition accepting, rejecting, or rejecting, etc. the application within a reasonable time. This lawsuit is instituted only by a person who has filed an application for a disposition and has legal interest in seeking confirmation that the omission is illegal.