1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the land indicated in the attached Table 1 List (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. On February 12, 1987, the Minister of Construction and Transportation (former Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport) published a decision to modify the old-American urban planning (financial expenses) (hereinafter “decision on the urban planning as of February 12, 1987”) on February 12, 1987 in the Official Gazette B publicly notified by the Ministry of Construction and Transportation, and kept copies of modified books in the office of the Gyeongbuk-do Office, the old-si Office

The instant land is located within the park area of the said urban planning according to the modified-sale-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type/type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type

C. On May 29, 199, the defendant U.S. Mayor determined the plan for creating the former urban planning facilities (Fpark) pursuant to Article 4 of the former Urban Park Act (amended by Act No. 6655 of Feb. 4, 200) and Article 12 of the former Urban Planning Act (amended by Act No. 6243 of Jan. 28, 2000), and publicly announced as C at the Gu and U.S., and publicly announced as C, and kept the plan for creating the urban planning facilities in the old city and the public perusal.

On May 25, 200, the Plaintiff filed a civil petition for grievance with the National Ombudsman on the following grounds: (a) “The Gu-U.S. Mayor determined facilities without any notification from the Plaintiff during the process of drafting and determining the said F Park; and (b) the instant land is integrated into a natural green belt since 30 years ago, resulting in infringement of property rights; (c) there is a Do park adjacent to the said park; and (d) HN Park was created at a close place; and (e) there is a request for the cancellation of the said facilities.”

On July 5, 200, the National Ombudsman had a Do park adjacent to the FF Park and there was a Do park in neighboring areas (700 meters), and the HN Park was created (194), and the facility itself can be revoked.