1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant project zone”) designated a plan for the development of an urban development zone (hereinafter “instant project zone”) in accordance with the Urban Development Act, which was by Act No. 2004-372, Nov. 20, 2004, the head of Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, as the implementer of the said urban development project (hereinafter “instant project”). The Plaintiff was designated as the implementer of the instant urban development project.

B. On December 29, 2005, the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “Seoul Special Metropolitan City”) authorized the modification of the development plan and the implementation plan for the project of this case as the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Notice No. 2005-

C. On June 12, 2009, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Defendant to purchase the land indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant land”) owned by the Defendant incorporated in the instant project zone, and paid the Defendant the purchase price of KRW 8,637,523,94 on the same day.

Relevant Acts and subordinate statutes are as follows:

(1) Where an operator provided for in Article 11 (1) 1 through 3 of the former Urban Development Act (amended by Act No. 8970 of March 21, 2008) installs new public facilities or public facilities replacing the existing public facilities, notwithstanding the provisions of the State Property Act and the Local Finance Act, the previous public facilities shall gratuitously revert to the operator, and the new public facilities shall gratuitously revert to the administrative agency in charge of managing such facilities (hereinafter referred to as the "administrative agency in charge of management under Article 66").

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion falls under “existing public facilities” as prescribed by Article 65(1) of the former Urban Development Act on the grounds that the land category of the instant land is a road or ditch, and thus, ought to be gratuitously reverted to the Plaintiff, who is the project executor

Nevertheless, the Defendant, on the ground that the present state of the instant land was not a road or a ditch, ordered the Plaintiff to purchase the instant land 8,637,523.