2. On March 14, 2013, the Defendant confirmed that the Defendant’s disposition of approving the implementation plan for the design and protruding project of the Defendant’s Intervenor limited liability company for the Defendant’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s design and protruding is invalid.

3. Of the total costs of the litigation, the part resulting from the participation is borne by the Defendant’s Intervenor, and the remainder is borne by the Defendant.

(a) Alteration of an urban or Gun management plan of the Duyang-gun;

1) On March 21, 2007, Jeonnam-do Governor notified the Defendant of the fact that “The promotion plan of the small Do 2007 small Do 2007 was finalized and notified by the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs under the Support for the Fostering of the small Do 2007 small Do 2007, so that the project cost is secured

2) In order to create a traditional play hall (hereinafter “the instant amusement hall”) in which the instant amusement park is located under Article 2 subparag. 6 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”) and Article 2(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the Defendant requested Jeonnnam-do Governor to revise the relevant Si/Gun management plan to enter into the said plan. Accordingly, on January 13, 2010, Jeonnam-do Do Governor decided and publicly announced the Manyang-gun Urban/Gun management plan (hereinafter “the amended urban/Gun management plan”) to create the instant amusement park on the land of the total area of 326,393 square meters of the total area of the total area of all members of the Ganyang-gun-gun ( Address 1 omitted). The detailed details of the plan for the use of land and the allocation of facilities are as indicated in the table below.

1. 0. 6 2. 4 2. 7 : 0. 4 2. 1 4 2. 5 4 4 2. 1 5 4 2. 1 5 4 1. 6 4 2. 5 4 1. 7 1. 5 4 1. 7 1. 180 11. 46, 536 14. 11. 11. 32. 12,48 7. 7. 16 1. 2. 5 1. 3 0 7. 4 1. 5 2. 5 7 1. 4 2. 5 7 1. 20 72. 13 4 5 7. 180 1. 20 7. 4 7. 5 72. 10

B. Authorization and announcement of an implementation plan for the first stage of the instant amusement park development project;

On January 5, 2011, pursuant to Article 88 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, the Defendant approved the implementation plan for the first stage of the instant amusement park development project from among the instant amusement park development projects, and announced it on January 13, 201.

2. The name of the project operator and the name of the project operator: The name of the project operator and the name of the project operator and the name of the project operator: The project operator and the name of the project operator and the name of the project operator and the name of the project operator: the area or the size of the traditional play hall development project (stage 1) in which the mera quota is a 91,402 square meters (the area of one-stage project in total of 326,393 square meters).

(c) Designation of a two-stage operator, authorization of an implementation plan, etc. among the instant amusement park development projects;

1) On February 16, 2012, the Seoyang-gun agreed with the Defendant’s Defendant’s Intervenor limited liability design pro ratas (hereinafter “design pro ratas”) and the Defendant’s design pro ratas (hereinafter “Design protrudings”) to carry out the phase 2 projects among the instant amusement park development projects. Accordingly, around October 2012, the design protrudings applied for the Defendant’s designation of pro ratas pro ratas Development Project (hereinafter “Design”) of the instant amusement park development project as the Defendant’s project implementer on October 18, 2012, with the content indicated below as follows: < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 23788, Oct. 18, 2012>

In order to contribute to the revitalization of the local economy through employment and increase of income in the community as a major tourist attraction project connected with the mera quota, which is a tourist master of 200 Mayang Group, contained in the main sentence of this Agreement - In order to promote the local economy by creating a mera room in the daily area ( Address 1 omitted) and contribute to the revitalization of the local economy: 135,260 m20 m23,204 m204 m204(23,69%, number of owners, 21), 42,056 m250(45, 31%, number of owners, 444.6 m2,97 m205 m2,97 m29. 46 m205 m204 m209 m294 m205 m29.

2) On November 2012, a design pro rata filed an application with the Defendant for authorization of the implementation plan of the Mctaos Project (hereinafter “instant implementation plan”). The application consists of: “1. application for authorization; 2. the location map and the planning plan of the project site; 3. Construction drawings and specifications; 4. Location, lot number, land category and size of the land or building to be expropriated or used; details of the ownership and rights other than ownership; the owner thereof; 5. Documents necessary for consultation with the heads of relevant administrative agencies pursuant to Article 92(3) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act; and some of the contents are as listed below.

본문내 포함된 표 2. 사업시행지의 위치도 및 계획평면도 - 각 위치도, 조성계획결정도, 지적위치도, 현황실측도, 용지도, 전체배치계획 평면도, 우수계획 평면도, 오수계획 평면도, 상수계획 평면도, 측구계획 평면도, 포장계획 평면도, 조경계획 평면도 3. 공사설계도서 가. 사업계획서 1) 계획의 개요 가) 계획의 배경 및 목적 - 광주 대도시권의 배후지로서, 산업·업무·문화·교육·공원 기능이 조화된 소도읍 조성으로 담양읍 지역개발의 활력소를 제공 - 2007년 3월 행자부에 의해 승인된 담양 소도읍 육성사업 중 부도심 확장지구사업 추진을 위해 실질적인 유원지 조성 필요 - 주 5일 근무제에 따른 여가 시간의 증대로 삶의 질 향상에 따른 의식의 변화와 이를 통한 레저·스포츠 활동, 근거리·단거리 여행이 지속적으로 증가하고 국내를 넘어 국외 관광객의 대거 유입이 기대됨 - 관광의 형태 또한 개인 위주의 관광에서 가족 단위, 동호회 단위의 관광이 증가하여 관람 위주의 관광에서 교육 목적의 참여 관광의 증가가 예상됨 나) 계획의 범위 (1) 사업시행기간 : 2012년 ~ 2015년 (2) 주요시설 : 프로방스, 펜션, 콘도, 관광호텔, 컨벤션, 상가 및 음식점, 녹지 2) 기본계획 가) 기본전제 이용계층별 관광행태를 고려한 개발수요와 개발가능지의 효율적인 이용을 도모할 수 있는 용도 배분 나) 토지이용(토지이용 총괄표) 시설명 부지면적(㎡) 건축면적(㎡) 연면적(㎡) 동수(동) 층수(층) 구성비(%) 합계 134,974 18,710 38,266 117 4 100 관리시설 소계 18,576 13.7 도로 9,382 6.9 주차장 9,194 6.8 휴양시설 소계 30,860 6,393 16,634 46 4 22.9 펜션 21,415 4,167 10,824 44 2 15.9 콘도 5,248 1,277 2,353 1 2 3.9 호텔 4,197 949 3,457 1 4 3.1 특수시설 컨벤션센터 2,667 1,019 1,929 1 2 2.0 편익시설 소계 37,110 11,298 19,703 70 3 27.5 프로방스 31,604 9,344 15,926 64 3 23.4 상가 및 음식점 5,506 1,954 3,777 6 2 4.1 녹지시설 소계 45,761 33.9 생태연못 723 0.5 경관녹지 45,038 33.4 다) 민자투자사업계획 (1) 투자사업비 : 민자사업의 투자사업비는 토지매입 및 부지조성비, 건축공사비, 각종 부담금 등 총 587억 원으로 산출 구분 면적(㎡) 단위(원) 공사비(원) 합계 58,700,000,000 토지매입비 4,500,000,000 각종용역비 1,500,000,000 각종부담금 1,000,000,000 공사비 공사비 소계 51,700,000,000 토목부대공사 9,100,000,000 건축공사비 42,600,000,000 프로방스상가 15,926 900,000 14,300,000,000 펜션 10,824 1,200,000 13,000,000,000 관광호텔 3,457 1,400,000 4,800,000,000 컨벤션센터 1,929 1,300,000 2,500,000,000 콘도 2,353 1,400,000 3,500,000,000 상가 및 음식점 3,255 1,200,000 3,900,000,000 상가 및 음식점 ① 522 1,200,000 600,000,000 (2) 재원조달계획 - 부대토목 및 인입공사를 마친 일부 토지는 매각(156억)하여 사업비로 충당 - 총 사업비 587억 중 분양토지에 건축되는 펜션 등의 건축비 283억을 제외한 순수사업비 총액 304억의 조달방안은 아래와 같음 구분 금액(원) 구성비(%) 합계 30,400,000,000 100.0 자기자본 7,200,000,000 23.7 분양사업 11,000,000,000 36.2 임대사업 5,200,000,000 17.1 은행차입금 7,000,000,000 23.0 - 토지 분양대금(110억) 및 상가 임대보증금(52억)은 토지 매각대금(156억), 보증금(75억)의 70%의 비용만 책정한 것으로 사업 당시의 현장여건에 따른 수치임 (3) 연차별 투자계획 - 부지조성 및 프로방스 상가는 2014년을 목표로 조성 완료하며, 호텔·콘도·컨벤션센터·상가 및 음식점 등은 분양을 통하여 각 개별 건설사에서 조성할 계획임

3) On March 14, 2013, the Defendant approved the instant implementation plan (hereinafter “instant authorization disposition”), and on March 20, 2013, publicly notified the same as indicated below (No. 2013-21 of the Seoyang-gun Notice).

1. Table 1. Business within the main sentence and name - 1. Business type and - 3 business type: 3 business type: 3 business type: 1: 4,974 square meters in the capacity or size of the business (the two stages of the project for the creation of traditional play) : 134,974 square meters in the capacity of the business: The project operator: The land utilization plan on the 24-month basis: 31,604 square meters in the capacity of 21,415 square meters (23.9%): 9,194 square meters in the capacity of 3: 723 square meters in the ecological pond: 5,506 square meters in the capacity of the business (the two stages of the project for the creation of traditional play); 44,974 square meters in the capacity of the business; 47,500 square meters in the capacity of the business; 37,500 square meters in the capacity of the business; 47,506 square meters in the size of the area of the business;

D. The plaintiffs' status, administrative appeal and expropriation of land

The Plaintiffs are the owners of land incorporated into the domain pro rata project site as shown in the attached Table 1 list. Plaintiff 1 filed an administrative appeal seeking the revocation of the instant authorization disposition with the Jeonnam-do Administrative Appeals Commission (Plaintiff 2 participated therein) on August 12, 2013, but Jeonnam-do Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the said claim on November 12, 2013. Meanwhile, the design pro rata applied for an adjudication with the owner, etc. on the ground that it did not reach an agreement, but agreed with the owner, etc. to acquire the land to be incorporated into the domain pro rata project. The Jeonnam-do Local Land Tribunal decided to expropriate each of the instant land, goods, etc. on September 27, 2013 (the date of commencement of expropriation) (the total compensation for losses, KRW 581,70,910).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 16 through 23, Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 7, 9, 15, 17, 18, 23, 25, 26, 29, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

1) The primary argument

The instant authorization disposition is null and void because there is an illegal defect for the following reasons and such defect succeeds to the defect of the instant designated disposition, or there is a serious and apparent defect in the said authorized disposition itself or the instant designated disposition and the instant authorized disposition.

A) Regarding the instant designated disposition

(1) Article 86(7) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act and Article 96(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that a person who intends to be designated as an implementer of an urban or Gun planning facility project (hereinafter “project implementer”) shall own a parcel of land equivalent to at least 2/3 of the area of the land subject to an urban or Gun planning facility project, excluding state-owned and public land, and obtain consent from at least 1/2 of the total number of landowners. As such, an administrative agency should determine

However, among the entire sites of the metaprox project, the State-owned and public land 42,056 square meters is included in the aggregate of 36,904 square meters of the land of 29 parcels, for which the registration of ownership transfer was completed on the ground of a consultation prior to the instant designated disposition. However, the acquisition of land by the aforementioned method by the Nanyang-gun, other than a project operator, is null and void in violation of Articles 16 and 17 of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (hereinafter “Public Works Act”), or at least is subject to the exercise of the right of repurchase, and thus the land of the said 29 parcels is still deemed as not state-owned and public land at the time of the instant designated disposition. Accordingly, on the premise of this, if the design proxor meets the requirements for ownership to be designated as a project operator, the design proxor did not meet the said requirements for ownership.

(2) Even if the above 29 parcel’s land is State-owned or public land, it is merely 93,204 square meters of the entire site for the Metade business at the time of the instant designated disposition, and the area owned by the design protruding is 55,075 square meters and is about 59% of the above private land area, and thus, the design protruding did not meet the requirements for the ownership of the land to be designated as the project implementer.

(3) Therefore, the instant disposition was made in violation of land ownership requirements prescribed by the National Land Planning Act to be designated as a project implementer, and is unlawful.

B) Regarding the instant authorization disposition

(1) The authorization of an implementation plan under the National Land Planning Act shall comply with the “Rules on the Determination, Structure, and Installation Standards of Urban or Gun Planning Facilities” (hereinafter “Rules on Urban Planning Facilities”). The Tourist Tourist, Confection, and Convention Center (hereinafter “main public facilities of this case”) which are the major public facilities of the main public facilities of the main project of the main project of the metaprocing area does not fall under the facilities (a performance hall, viewing hall, and exhibition hall among lodging facilities or special facilities among resort facilities) that may be installed in amusement parks pursuant to Article 58(2)3 and 4 of the Rules on Urban Planning Facilities, and cannot be installed in the site of the metaprocing project, which is an amusement park, on the ground that no facilities similar to those falling under subparagraphs 1 through 7 of Article 58(2) of the Rules on Urban Planning Facilities.

In addition, the major public interest facilities of this case fall under facilities for hotel business, resort condominium business, and international conference business as stipulated in Article 3(1)2 and 4 of the Tourism Promotion Act. However, there is no designation of a tourist destination or tourism complex under the same Act or approval of a business plan for specialized resort business or general resort business, and therefore, it cannot be installed even if it conforms to Article 58(4) of the Regulations on Urban Planning Facilities.

Furthermore, even if a pent, commercial building, or restaurant, other than the main public facilities of this case, intends to newly construct a design pro rata, constitutes a resort facility or convenience facility that can be installed in an amusement park, it is merely an incidental convenience facility in an amusement park, and thus it cannot be deemed public interest. Thus, an implementation plan that can only exercise the right to expropriate for the installation of the above facility cannot be approved.

Therefore, the instant authorization disposition is unlawful since it is subject to the instant implementation plan, the contents of which are the installation of facilities that cannot be installed even if according to the relevant laws and regulations, or the installation of ancillary convenience facilities that do not have public interests.

(2) Article 88(2) and (5) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act provides that a project implementer shall prepare an implementation plan for an urban or Gun planning facility project and obtain authorization, and that the implementation plan shall specify or attach in detail the design documents, funding plans, execution period, etc. necessary for the implementation of the project, and Article 92(1)1 of the same Act provides that a building permit is deemed granted by authorization of the implementation plan. As such, a project implementer shall submit the same level of design documents as “design documents submitted at the time of application for a building permit” when applying for authorization for an implementation plan. However, the instant implementation plan is not accompanied by the aforementioned design documents, and there are no details of a funding plan and execution

Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful since it was conducted with respect to the instant implementation plan that failed to meet the requirements for authorization as above.

(3) Although the National Land Planning and Utilization Act does not stipulate that part of the site for an urban or Gun planning facility project should be appropriated for the project cost by selling part of the site for an urban or Gun planning facility project, unlike other Acts which explicitly stipulate the land secured by the recompense for development outlay, the instant implementation plan provides that the design project operator, who is the project operator, shall sell the site for major public facilities, etc. and appropriate it for part of the main protruding project

(4) The instant authorization disposition permits a design professional director to sell a site for the instant major public facilities, etc. to a third party and to install the said facilities. The design professional director, who is the project executor, can transfer his position to a third party, resulting in the change of the project executor by a design professional director, who is not the Defendant, who is the person with the authority to authorize the implementation plan. This is recognized as having the capacity to implement the project plan from the administrative agency, and only the designated person can be the project executor, and the project executor violates Article 86(5) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, which provides for the direct installation of infrastructure, and the project executor must secure ownership of the project site through the acquisition through consultation or expropriation during the project execution period, and thus is unlawful as it violates Article 100 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, which provides that no sale (sale) or lease of the project site shall be effected until the project is completed.

C) Regarding the instant designated disposition and authorization disposition

The project operator must have the intent and ability to perform the relevant public project. The design professional engineer is required to prepare funds necessary for the installation of the remaining facilities by means of selling the land to a third party by entering tourist hotel, etc., which is the major public facilities of this case, with the exception of the amount of KRW 51.5 billion in the total project cost of the 58.7 billion project cost for the relevant public project, and the design professional engineer is required to sell the land to a third party. The above major public facilities were stated that the loan amounting to KRW 7 billion in the above project site, etc., and KRW 5.2 billion in the sale price of the snow site through the sale and lease of some commercial buildings, and KRW 5.8.3 billion in the sale price of the building site, and the disposition of this case is about the two stages of the amusement park development project of this case composed of three stages, and its contents will be distinguished from the 13th project cost for the installation of commercial buildings, restaurants, and accommodation facilities, which is a non-profit facility, and the modification of the urban planning facilities plan to improve its welfare.

2) Preliminary assertion

A) The instant disposition of authorization has the same defects as seen earlier, and even if such defects are not serious and clear, it should be revoked as it is unlawful.

B) In addition, since the instant implementation plan is the content of establishing a facility inducing tourists and creating profits through the accommodation business, etc. for the purpose of promoting the welfare of residents of the Yyang-gun, it is not consistent with the “ amusement park” for the purpose of promoting the welfare of residents of the Yyang-gun. In addition, since the design drawings, etc. of the main public facilities of this case at the time of applying for authorization of the said implementation plan do not include design drawings, etc. for the said implementation plan, the said implementation plan cannot be deemed as an appropriate means to achieve the above purpose. The design protruding may sell the land purchased at low-price to a high-value site for the main public facilities of this case, and goes beyond the buyer responsible for installing the main public facilities. Instead, the profitability is high, but only only a commercial building for the ancillary convenience is low, and the Plaintiffs lost their public interest, and thus the instant implementation plan was lost due to the abuse of discretionary authority, and thus, should be revoked.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form 2 shall be as listed in attached Table 2.

C. Determination

First, I examine the primary argument of the plaintiffs.

1) Relevant legal principles

In order for an administrative disposition to be null and void as a matter of course, it is insufficient to say that there is an illegal cause. The defect must be objectively obvious as it seriously violates the important part of the law. In determining whether the defect is significant and obvious, the purpose, meaning, function, etc. of the law should be examined from a teleological perspective, and at the same time, reasonable consideration of the specificity of the specific case itself. In a case where an administrative disposition is taken by applying a certain provision of law to a certain legal relation or fact-finding, if there is room for dispute over the interpretation of the law, it is merely a mistake of the fact of the administrative disposition, even if the administrative disposition was taken by erroneous interpretation of the law, and it cannot be said that the defect is evident. However, even though the meaning of the requirement of the disposition in the language and text of the law, it cannot be deemed that there is room for dispute over the interpretation because the legal principle is not clearly revealed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Du374614, Mar. 20, 2015).

2) Whether the instant designated disposition satisfies the requirements for land ownership

A) First, since each transfer registration of ownership on the land of 29 parcels as seen earlier is invalid or at least subject to the exercise of the right of repurchase on the ground of an agreement, the registration of ownership transfer, which has been made in the future, is still subject to the exercise of the right of repurchase, not the state-owned or public land, and the acquisition of land under the Public Works Act by agreement has the substance of private trade (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Du18819, Feb. 10, 201). Thus, insofar as there is no evidence to acknowledge that such acquisition by agreement was cancelled due to fraud or mistake or that the exercise of the right of repurchase was actually exercised, this part of the Plaintiffs’ assertion is without merit without further review.

B) Next, Article 86(7) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act and Article 96(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that land equivalent to at least 2/3 of the area of land subject to an urban/Gun planning facility project, excluding State-owned and public land, should be owned by the project implementer to be designated as the project implementer; however, there is no provision regarding the standard period for determination of requirements for ownership. However, as to the requirements for concurrent consent to be designated as the project implementer along with the above requirements for ownership, unless the act of a private person is prohibited or impossible due to its nature, the land owner may freely withdraw or revise such requirements until an administrative act is performed. Thus, the land owner may be deemed able to withdraw his/her consent or withdraw his/her consent until a disposition for designation of the project implementer is taken. ② Since the private enterprise designated as the project implementer can expropriate land subject to an urban/Gun planning facility project with the authorization of the implementation plan, it is meaningful to justify the granting of the right to expropriate such private enterprise, and thus, it is reasonable to deem that the period of ownership should be determined as the standard for 101.

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the Defendant issued the instant disposition designating the project implementer on October 18, 2012, under which the project implementer was designated as the project implementer of the instant project. The instant disposition is 93,204 square meters of the project area at the time of the instant designation. State-owned and public land is 42,056 square meters of the land owned by the project implementer up to 55,075 square meters and is 59% of the total area of the land owned by the said private project owner. Thus, the Defendant’s assertion that the aforementioned project implementer did not own the land equivalent to 2/3 or more of the area of the land subject to an urban or Gun planning facility project, as it is deemed that the Plaintiff owned the land owned by the project implementer under the Act on the Ownership of Land Planning and Utilization and Utilization and the Enforcement Decree of the National Land Planning and Utilization and Utilization and Etc., which is de facto owned by the representative director of the instant land at the time of the foregoing private land. Therefore, the instant disposition of the land owned by the Defendant 26.

C) Furthermore, with respect to the degree of its defect, ① the designation of a project implementer and the authorization of an implementation plan provide the project implementer with the authority to implement the relevant urban or Gun planning facility project. The implementation plan is able to implement an urban or Gun planning facility project in accordance with the above implementation plan. The status of the administrative entity that can exercise public authority with respect to certain matters, such as the right to expropriate land, etc. necessary for the relevant project within the scope of implementation of an urban or Gun planning facility project is granted (see Supreme Court Decision 93Nu24230, May 24, 1994, etc.). ② A private person other than the State, etc. owns more than 2/3 of the land area in advance within the project site and 1/2 or more of the owners thereof are installed with a control system for not exercising the right to expropriate with the project implementer’s unilateral intent (see Constitutional Court Order 2008Hun-Ba16, Jun. 30, 201).

D) In addition, where two or more administrative dispositions are continually conducted, when one legal effect of the preceding dispositions is completed by combining two or more preceding dispositions and subsequent dispositions, if there is a defect in the preceding dispositions, such defect shall be succeeded to the subsequent dispositions, and even if it becomes impossible to dispute the validity of the preceding dispositions due to a defect in the preceding dispositions, the validity of the subsequent dispositions shall be disputed (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Du14915, Apr. 15, 2005, etc.).

In light of the above legal principles, the designation disposition of this case and the authorization disposition of this case are combined with other matters necessary for the formulation, implementation, etc. of plans to utilize, develop and preserve national land and are to complete one legal effect called the establishment of the amusement park of this case under the National Land Planning Act for the purpose of promoting public welfare and improving the quality of life of the people. As long as the defect of the designation disposition of this case is so serious and obvious that it is null and void as the defect of the above designation disposition of this case is succeeded to the authorization disposition of this case, which is the subsequent disposition, and thus, it is reasonable to deem that the above authorization disposition also becomes null and void.

3) As to each argument regarding the instant authorization disposition

A) Whether the installation of major public facilities of this case itself is unlawful

According to Article 2 subparag. 2, subparag. 6 (b) and subparag. 7, Article 43 (1) and Article 2 (1) subparag. 2 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, an amusement park constitutes infrastructure, and Article 43 (2) of the same Act provides for matters necessary for the determination, structure, and installation standards of urban or Gun planning facilities. Accordingly, Article 56 of the Regulations on Urban Planning, which is the Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, provides for the definition of “ amusement park” as facilities for amusement and relaxation, which are installed to mainly contribute to improving the welfare of the residents. Article 58 (2) provides for the subdivision of facilities that can be installed in amusement parks under subparagraphs 1 through 7, and Article 58 (2) provides for the subdivision of resort facilities (subparagraph. 3), public performance halls, exhibition halls, viewing halls, and facilities similar to those under subparagraphs 1 through 7, Article 43 (2) of the same Act, and Article 58 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Tourism Promotion Act provides that facilities may be installed in a tourist complex or a resort complex business plan under Article 5(2).

However, according to the statement in Eul evidence No. 3, even if based on the modified urban/Gun management plan itself, the establishment of commercial buildings, restaurants, and fences is scheduled as convenience facilities in the instant amusement park. The major public interest facilities in this case do not coincide with the concept of the rules of urban planning facilities, which are facilities for recreation and relaxation, to contribute to the improvement of residents' welfare, and rather than the concept of the rules of urban planning facilities. Accordingly, Article 58 (2) of the rules of urban planning facilities, which provides that accommodation facilities may be installed as resort facilities, special facilities, performance halls, exhibition halls, and viewing places, or similar facilities may be installed through deliberation by the Urban Planning Deliberation Committee, and any specific restriction is not imposed on the establishment of a resort facilities. In full view of the above, the major public interest facilities in this case fall under the specialized resort facilities from Article 58 (2) 1 to 7 of the said rules or at least similar facilities, and the implementation plan in this case does not have any dispute over the establishment of a resort complex in this case as a result of deliberation by the Urban Planning Deliberation Committee.

B) Whether the implementation plan of the instant case was unlawful due to the failure to attach design drawings and specifications

(1) A project implementer shall prepare an implementation plan for an urban or Gun planning facility project. Article 88(1) and (5) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act and Article 97(6) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that the implementation plan shall include the location map of the project site and the ground plan, construction drawings, construction drawings, land number, land category, and size of the land or building to be expropriated or used, details of ownership and rights other than ownership, the name and address of the owner and right holder thereof, records and drawings of the public facilities newly installed by an urban or Gun planning facility project, the cost of installation thereof, and documents necessary for consultation with the head of the relevant administrative agency pursuant to Article 92(3) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act. Article 2 subparag. 14 of the Building Act provides that the implementation plan shall be accompanied by the drawings, structure, specifications, and other necessary documents for construction of a building in the column of the design and specifications, and Article 6(1)2 [Attachment 2] of the Enforcement Rule of the Building Act provides that the plan shall be accompanied by the plan and drawings of the National Land Planning Act, the building plan, the excavation plan, the building drawings, the building plan, the land.

(2) According to the above-mentioned provisions, if it is difficult to examine the application of this case in light of the above-mentioned provisions, the design pro rata is difficult to identify the project site location map, the determination of the creation plan plan, the determination (change) plan, the land location map, the entire installation plan map, the ground plan, the plan plan, the sewage plan, the ground plan, and the landscape plan" as well as the project plan stating and indicating the entire outline and location of the main project with construction plan and the construction cost, the price calculated, the machinery cost, the material cost, the unit price, the unit price, and the unit price plan of the above project cannot be seen as the installation cost of this case and the plan for the implementation of this case as the location of the project site and the ground plan, and it is difficult to determine whether the application of this case is unlawful by the defendant as to the construction permit of each case, including the major public interest facilities to be installed as the project site, and if it is deemed that the application of this case's construction permit of this case is not in conformity with the requirements of the construction permit of this case.

However, since such defects are serious and clear, the construction laws and regulations stipulate in detail as to whether the authorization disposition in this case is invalid, and ① the construction laws and regulations stipulate in detail as to the documents to be submitted along with the application form for a building permit. However, the national land planning laws and regulations stipulate that the project implementer shall prepare an implementation plan for an urban/Gun planning facility project, and the implementation plan must be detailed and attached to the design plan. ② The administrative plan is established as an activity standard for realizing certain order at a certain time in the future by integrating and coordinating the administrative means related to each other in order to achieve specific administrative goals such as the construction, maintenance, improvement, etc. of a city based on a professional and technical judgment on administration. The relevant laws and regulations only stipulate abstract administrative goals and procedures, but do not have any specific provisions regarding administrative plans, so the administrative body has a relatively wide range of freedom in drafting and determining a specific administrative plan, which is not an administrative agency, and considering the fact that a private enterprise, such as a design professional agent, who is not an administrative agency, has been designated as a project implementer, it cannot be deemed invalid even if all of the construction plan in this case.

C) Whether the project costs are procured through sale of land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay

Although there is no explicit provision allowing the sale of land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act to cover project costs, considering the following: (i) it is possible to designate a private enterprise as an executor and implement a project pursuant to Article 86(5) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act; (ii) it is difficult for private enterprises to separately procure project costs; and (iii) it is difficult for private enterprises to procure large-scale capital by themselves, even if the instant project plan provides land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay to cover some project costs, the instant authorization disposition cannot be deemed unlawful

D) Whether the sale of a project site within the project period is illegal

1. The National Land Planning Act provides that, in principle, a plan for the use of land, traffic, environment, landscape, safety, industry, information and communications, health, welfare, security, culture, etc. to be formulated for the development, maintenance and conservation of the Special Metropolitan City, a Metropolitan City, a Special Self-Governing City, a Special Self-Governing Province, or a Si/Gun shall be implemented by an administrative agency unless otherwise provided for in Article 2 subparagraph 4, and an urban or Gun planning facility project may be implemented by an administrative agency as a project implementer after being designated by the administrative agency as an urban or Gun planning facility project (Article 86 (5)), if the project implementer satisfies strict standards, such as ownership requirements and consent requirements, etc. (Article 86 (2)).

However, even according to its content itself, the instant implementation plan is to sell a site for the instant major public facilities, etc. to a third party before completing construction of an urban or Gun planning facility project, and to have the third party install the above public facilities, etc., and considering the apparent violation of the language and text of the pertinent Act and the legal meaning of the authorization for the implementation plan, it is reasonable to deem that the instant authorization disposition that approved the implementation plan was null and void because its defect is material and clear.

4) Whether the pertinent designated disposition and authorized disposition have the intent and ability to carry out public activities related to the instant designated disposition and authorized disposition

A) Since the project approval is determined as a project to expropriate or use land, etc. for a public project and form a specific right of expropriation on the condition that the project executor should take a certain procedure thereafter. Thus, even if the project falls under a project that can expropriate or use land, etc., a project approval institution should fairly compare and compare the public interest and private interest as well as the interests of the persons related to the project approval with respect to the contents and method of the project, even if the project has public interest and public interest, and the comparison and bridge shall conform to the principle of proportionality. In addition, the right of expropriation can not be granted to a person who has no intent or ability to realize the public interest by performing the relevant public project, and thus, the project operator must have the intent and ability to perform the relevant public project (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du1051, Jan. 27, 2011).

B) However, examining the following circumstances acknowledged by adding up the aforementioned evidence, Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 5, 12, Eul evidence Nos. 10, 11, 20 through 28, 30, and 31 as a result of the party members’ on-site inspection, and the overall purport of the pleadings, in light of the above legal principles, it is difficult to see that the design protruding has the intent and ability to perform it as a public service project operator, and this is deemed as serious and obvious defects or at least significant defects.

(1) Before the instant designated disposition and authorized disposition, the design pro rata was not only a corporation established in 6 days prior to the formation of an agreement on the design protruding-gun and the met the requirements for ownership as stipulated in the relevant laws and regulations at the time of the instant designated disposition.

(2) On January 13, 2010, an urban or Gun management plan (the foregoing modified urban or Gun management plan has not been amended legally and effectively as in the instant implementation plan by the Do Governor) that was determined and publicly announced by the Do Governor on or around 13, 2010 by means of an increase in tourism-based tourism-based facilities and tourism-based tourism-based tourism-based tourism-based tourism-based tourism-based tourism-based tourism-based tourism-based tourism-based tourism-based tourism-based tourism-based tourism-based tourism-based tourism-based tourism-based tourism-based tourism-based tourism-based tourism-based tourism-based tourism-based tourism-based tourism-based tourism-based tourism-based tourism-based tourism-based tourism-based tourism-based tourism-based tourism-based tourism-based tourism-based tourism-based tourism-based tourism-based tourism-based tourism-based tourism-based tourism-based tourism-based tourism-based tourism-based tourism-based tourism-based tourism-based tourism-based tourism-based tourism-based tourism-based plan. However, the instant implementation plan is 2424 percent (24).

(3) The design room project cost of this case is KRW 58.7 billion in total, including the cost of purchase of land and construction, construction cost, various charges, etc. for the above 10.7 billion won in the execution plan of this case. The part of the land (the site of fence, tourist hotel, container, commercial building, restaurant, and restaurant ① under the above implementation plan) which completed the civil engineering and human construction in order to raise the financial resources shall be sold as the project cost (1.6 billion won in total) and the amount shall be appropriated as the project cost for the above 58.7 billion in total project cost. 30 billion in pure construction cost of the above 1.6 billion won in total for the above 20 billion in total for the land for the above 20.3 billion in total for the land for the tourist hotel construction project, 1.2 billion in total for the above sale, 5.2 billion in total for the land for the public interest complex and 20 billion in total for the commercial restaurant and 30.7 billion in total for the commercial building site.

(4) For the purpose of raising project costs as above, the site of the instant major public facilities, etc. was sold to others, and the implementation period of the instant project is from April 30, 2015 to April 30, 2015, the implementation period of the implementation plan is from December 12, 2012 to March 2015 (the project plan attached to the above application is stated as from 2012 to 2015). While the implementation plan was 24 months from the date of the authorization of the instant project, the design room was 14, commercial buildings, and 2, commercial buildings, and 11, commercial buildings, and 2, and 11, commercial buildings are not completed at the 10th project site inspection time of the project implementer, and the remaining 15th project site and 20th project site are prepared and completed at each of the 10th project site and 10th project site of each of the 20th project sites (the 15th project site and 20th project site).

(5) As seen earlier, although only a person operating a meta program was designated, the Defendant added merasia, and vegebling so as to the implementer of the relevant project on November 13, 2014 (no data was previously designated as the implementer of the relevant project). The said project site is designed for 11,682.7 square meters of the design site, 10,856 square meters of the merasia, 12,418 square meters of the merasas, and the merasasia is divided into 12,418 square meters of the meras. However, the Defendant revised and publicly notified the instant authorization disposition on December 5, 2014, and revised the new implementation plan to more than 11,682 square meters of the meras and vegebing so that it can not be approved and publicly notified to more than 15,000 square meters of the merasian as to each of the project (the 2015 urban planning facility project).

(6) On November 4, 2013, the construction work site of the instant 20 square meters was newly built with 11 square meters for 25 square meters, including tourist accommodation business (family hotel), tourist hotel, seat of 2: 11 square meters (mixed building sites among the major public facilities of this case): 5,248 square meters (total floor area 4,670.10 square meters), 57 square meters on the ground, incidental facilities (management rooms, seminars, annual conference rooms, etc.), and 14 square meters for 20 square meters for 20 square meters for 25 square meters for 25 square meters for 25 square meters for 25 square meters for 25 square meters for 25 square meters for 25 square meters for 25 square meters for 25 square meters for 44 different tourist accommodation facilities: tourist accommodation business (tourist hotel), tourist hotel, tourist hotel, 42 square meters for 200 square meters for 20 square meters for 14.

D. Sub-committee

As a result, the instant authorization disposition is bound to be null and void due to the succession of the serious and clear defects of the instant designated disposition or the serious and clear defects of the authorization disposition itself (no part of the Plaintiffs’ assertion that is final and void is reasonable, but the rest of the reasons except this can be recognized that the defects are serious and clear enough). The Plaintiffs’ primary claims are reasonable.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' primary claim of this case is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair, so the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked by accepting the plaintiffs' appeal and it is confirmed that the authorization of this case is null and void. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Park Byung-il (Presiding Judge)