The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the lower court comprehensively determined the following facts: (a) on February 22, 2012, the Defendant publicly notified the modification of an implementation plan for an urban or Gun planning facility project changing the form of use C from “general roads” to “exclusive roads”; (b) the Defendant issued a public announcement of the modification of a plan for filling lots in a development-restricted zone on October 28, 2014, including the instant application site; (c) was planned to be designated and publicly announced as an exclusive motorway after the completion of the construction of a road; and (d) pursuant to Article 52 of the Road Act, the Defendant determined that the designation and public announcement of a plan for filling lots in a development-restricted zone was unlawful, taking into account the following factors: (a) the Gyeonggi-do general inspector office of Gyeonggi-do, stating that no facility installed by the State or a local government or a passage connected with the relevant facility; (b) the designation and public announcement of a plan for filling lots in a development-restricted zone is unlawful; (c) the designation and public announcement of the road.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the above judgment of the court below is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the criteria for distinguishing between the binding act and discretionary act and the interpretation of the law.