1. The issue of whether a certain act of an administrative agency can be a subject of an appeal cannot be determined abstractly and generally. In a specific case, an administrative disposition is an enforcement of law with respect to a specific fact conducted by an administrative agency as a public authority, which directly affects the rights and obligations of the people. The decision shall be made individually taking into account the content and purport of the relevant Act and subordinate statutes, the subject, content, form, and procedure of the act, the actual relation between the act and disadvantage suffered by interested parties, such as the other party, and the principle of administration by the rule of law, the attitude of the administrative agency and interested parties related to the pertinent act, etc. (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2008Du167, Nov. 18, 2010; Supreme Court Decision 2013Du7834, Apr. 24, 2014).

2. According to the former Urban Development Act (amended by Act No. 10580, Apr. 12, 2011), when a planned urban development is deemed necessary, the Special Metropolitan City Mayor, Metropolitan City Mayor, Do Governor, Special Self-Governing Province Governor (hereinafter “Mayor/Do Governor”) etc. may designate an urban development zone (Article 3(1)), a Mayor (excluding a large city Mayor), the head of a Gun/Gu (referring to an autonomous Gu; hereinafter the same shall apply), as prescribed by Presidential Decree, may request the Mayor/Do Governor to designate an urban development zone (Article 3(4)), and the Mayor/Do Governor, etc. shall obtain the consent of at least 2/3 of the area of land in the area to which the replotting applies and at least 1/2 of the total number of landowners in such area (Article 4(3)). In such cases, landowners of an urban development zone, etc. may propose the designation of an urban development zone to the Governor of a Special Self-Governing Province, the head of a Si/Gun/Gu, or the head of a Si/Gu (including at least 2).

Meanwhile, with respect to the method of calculating the number of consenters under Article 4(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Urban Development Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2356, Dec. 8, 2011; hereinafter the same), Article 6(2) of the same Act provides that when calculating the area of an urban development zone, a person who withdraws his/her consent before the designation of an urban development zone is proposed pursuant to Article 11(5) of the Act shall be excluded from the number of consenters, while calculating the area of an urban development zone, he/she shall be excluded from the number of consenters. In addition, Article 6(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Urban Development Act provides that where the land area and the number of landowners fails to meet the legal requirements after obtaining consent to the whole private land area and the land owner, other than the State-owned and public land, the consent shall be obtained from the government-owned and public land management authority.

3. On May 4, 2006, the lower court: (a) obtained approval from the Minister of Construction and Transportation of Incheon Metropolitan City from the Minister of Construction and Transportation for implementation of the said urban development project; (b) planned the area of 732,000 square meters in Busan Seo-gu, Busan Metropolitan City as a planned site for urbanization belonging to the second development stage from 2006 to 2010; (c) the Plaintiff was an unincorporated association organized for the purpose of implementing an urban development project in accordance with the replotting method prescribed under the Urban Development Act from the owner of the private land in the instant zone; and (c) requested the Defendant, a government-owned or public-owned land within the instant zone, which is the government-owned or public-owned land within the mountainous district, to consent to the implementation of the said urban development project on July 27, 2009, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s consent to the withdrawal of the above civil petition to the above mountainous district and the Defendant’s consent to the Defendant’s response to 2017.17.

In addition, based on the above facts, the lower court determined that: (a) in order to establish a development plan for an urban development project by replotting, the consent is required to be obtained from the landowner; (b) such consent is merely exercised the right of ownership in the case of the consent of the government-owned and public land management authority; (c) so that an urban development project can be implemented smoothly and efficiently with the consent of the landowner before the development plan is established; (c) the consent is not required to obtain the consent of the landowner; (d) the consent is not required to obtain the consent of the owner of the land in this case, but to obtain the consent of the owner of the land in this case; and (e) the consent is not required to obtain the consent of the owner of the land in this case, not to obtain the consent of the owner of the land in this case, but to obtain the consent of the owner of the land in this case; and (e) the consent cannot be required to obtain the consent of the owner of the land in this case’s urban development project.

Examining the record in light of the above legal principles and statutes, the above judgment of the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles on the disposition subject to revocation lawsuit

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party, including the portion arising from the participation in the appeal. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

[Attachment] List of Intervenor joining the Defendant: Omitted

Justices Kwon Soon-il (Presiding Justice)