(b) Validity of a decision to revise an urban planning that violates the procedure for public inspection and announcement;

B. In full view of the provisions of Article 16-2(2) of the Urban Planning Act and Article 14-2(6), (7), and (8) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the application for an alteration of the urban planning that violates the public inspection and publication procedure cannot be deemed unlawful, and as long as there exist any defects in the procedure guaranteed by the above Act in the administrative disposition, the administrative disposition is unlawful even if there is no possibility of its discretion and alteration.

Article 11(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Urban Planning Act provides that “The head of a Si/Gun shall draw up an urban planning within his jurisdiction” and Article 15(1) provides that “the head of a Si/Gun may investigate or survey, under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, the population, industry status, the current status of land utilization, and other matters necessary for the formulation of an urban planning” in order to draw up an urban planning, and Article 16-2(2) provides that “the head of a Si/Gun shall hear the opinions of the residents and shall reflect such opinions in the formulation of an urban planning if he deems it reasonable.” In addition, Article 11(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Urban Planning Act provides that “The head of a Si/Gun shall, when Gun intends to draw up an urban planning under the provisions of Article 15(1) of the Act, make a survey of the following matters within the planned urban planning area to be conducted by the head of a Gun.”

The purpose of these provisions is to rationally adjust the interests of the majority of interested parties in the formulation of urban planning and reflect the will of the people in the process in order to prevent unfair infringement on the rights of the people and to secure democratization and trust in administration. Therefore, administrative disposition defective in the above procedure should be deemed illegal.

The court below determined that the non-party, who is a public official of Kimpo-gun, in making an application for the change of urban planning by supplementing the new road plan in this case within the non-industrial area of Kimpo-Eup, did not conduct a survey of basic data on the traffic volume and population increase rate within the above quasi-industrial area, but prepared two new road network plans based on the centerline of the quasi-industrial area, considering the existing status and the location of various facilities, while planning two new road plans within the above quasi-industrial area in consideration of the location of topography and various facilities, while requesting the service company to conduct a survey of the change of urban planning and preparing the planning drawing, and further, the new road plan in this case cannot be said to have any defect in the procedure such as a survey, because there was a supplementary order for the change of urban planning through the deliberation and resolution of the urban planning committee on the proposed change of urban planning, and it cannot be said that there was no error in the law of the above new urban planning committee concerning the change of the land volume and the new urban planning plan related to the new urban planning committee.

In addition, the court below determined that, when the head of Kimpo-si publicly announced a draft of the change of urban planning, there is a defect in the public announcement procedure of the draft plan concerning the part of the new road plan, since it is recognized that the contents of the change of urban planning are partially changed and newly established by unit facilities (road, park, facility green belt), and that the contents of the change of urban planning cannot be seen as being changed and newly established by only the contents of the change of urban planning plan, and therefore, it cannot be seen as having properly followed the procedure of hearing opinions as a whole. However, the above public announcement is closely related to the announcement made prior to the application for the change of urban planning, and it is recognized that the contents of the new supplement plan such as the new road plan in this case are clearly announced, if the whole of the draft plan is deemed to have been partially omitted, it does not make the change of urban planning itself unlawful, and even if it is not so, it cannot be seen as unlawful because the contents of the new plan including the formulation and decision of urban planning are broadly granted to the administrative agency due to carbonity, and its authority to the change of the plan.

However, according to Article 16-2 (2) of the Urban Planning Act, in full view of the provisions of Article 14-2 (6) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, which provides that the procedures of hearing the residents' opinions shall be followed except in the case of national defense secrets or insignificant matters, and Article 14-2 (7) of the same Decree which provides that the head of a Si/Gun may submit a written opinion within the public inspection period, and the provisions of Article 14-2 (8) of the same Decree which provides that the head of a Gun shall also submit a written opinion when he/she files an application for determination of an urban planning along with the residents' opinions, the application for determination of an alteration of the urban planning in violation of the public inspection and announcement procedure shall not be unlawful, and in the event that there

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon In-bok (Presiding Justice)