1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiffs are co-owners of 2,842 square meters of forest land M of the window in Changwon-si, Changwon-si (hereinafter “instant land”).

Plaintiff

A is the 370/2842 shares of Plaintiff B, the 118/2842 shares of Plaintiff C, the 118/2842 shares of Plaintiff D, the 207/2842 shares of Plaintiff D, the 148/2842 shares of Plaintiff E, the 147/2842 shares of Plaintiff F, the 296/2842 shares of Plaintiff G, the 201/2842 shares of Plaintiff H, the 201/2842 shares of Plaintiff H, the 201/2842 shares of Plaintiff J, the 444/2842 shares of Plaintiff K, the 296/2842 shares of Plaintiff L, and the 296/2842 shares of Plaintiff L.

B. On January 22, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed an application with the Defendant for permission to engage in development activities (land division) on the instant land.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant application”). C.

On January 29, 2016, the Defendant rendered a non-permission disposition on the instant application on the grounds that “The land shall be at least 1,000 square meters in size after the division shall be at least 1,000 square meters in size, pursuant to the provisions of Article 56(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act and Article 22(3) of the Ordinance on the Urban Planning of Changwon-si, which is not authorized under other Acts and subordinate statutes or it is impossible to develop

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

The Plaintiffs filed an application for adjudication on the instant disposition with the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on April 27, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Under Article 22(3) of the Ordinance on Changsi City Urban Planning, the Defendant asserted that the instant disposition was rendered on the ground that “this case’s land shall not be less than 1,000 square meters since it was divided into land for which authorization or permission is not obtained under other Acts and subordinate statutes or it is impossible to develop due to the lack of infrastructure.”

However, the instant disposition is unlawful as it deviates from and abused discretionary power for the following reasons.

1. The instant disposition.