[2] Whether direct binding power of the basic urban planning under Article 10-2 of the Urban Planning Act exists (negative), and whether the area subject to determination of urban planning facilities increases above the planned area of the basic urban planning (negative)

[2] Article 11(1) of the Urban Planning Act provides that the head of a Si/Gun shall formulate an urban planning to be implemented within his/her jurisdictional urban planning zone in compliance with the contents of the basic urban planning. However, the basic urban planning is not directly binding as a long-term and comprehensive development plan, which serves as a guide for the formulation of urban planning, presenting the long-term development direction and future circumstances of the city, so the area subject to determination of urban planning facilities increased than that scheduled in the basic urban planning, and

In ordinary cases where an administrative disposition is taken through a public notice or notification, the parties to the disposition are unspecified persons and the effect of the disposition is uniformly applied to many and unspecified persons. Therefore, it is reasonable to calculate the period for requesting an administrative appeal against it by deeming that the period for requesting an administrative appeal was known of such administrative disposition on the date of public notice or public announcement (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 94Nu5694, Aug. 22, 1995; Supreme Court Decision 96Nu8567, Nov. 29, 196

According to the records, on August 21, 1993, the defendant announced the decision of urban planning facilities of this case in the Official Gazette (No. 1993-94 of Gangwon-do Notice), and the plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the decision of urban planning facilities of this case on December 14, 1993, 60 days after the lapse of 60 days from the plaintiff's appeal period under Article 18 (1) of the former Administrative Appeals Act (amended by Act No. 5000 of Dec. 6, 1995).

Thus, the plaintiff's request for administrative appeal is illegal as it has already been filed after the expiration of the period for request, and therefore, the part concerning the request for cancellation of the determination of urban planning facilities of this case among the judgment below is illegal as it does not go through legitimate transfer procedure, and thus it is necessary to dismiss it. However, the judgment of the court below which ruled on the ground of

However, this part is sufficient for this court to render its own judgment, and therefore, the part concerning the claim for revocation of the determination of urban planning facilities of this case among the judgment below shall be reversed and dismissed.

2. We examine the grounds of appeal as to the remaining claims of the Plaintiff.

A. On the first and second grounds for appeal

(1) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that the land of this case was not included in the area of amusement park under the basic urban planning, or was not included in the area of urban planning in the formulation, announcement, and public inspection of urban planning facilities in the judgment of the court below on July 5, 1991, after formulating a plan to modify the basic urban planning of Si-si, which includes the development of 250,000 square meters of land, including the land of this case, as indicated in the judgment of the court below. The Defendant filed an application for the determination with the Defendant on May 25, 1993, after going through the public announcement and public inspection procedure as stated in the judgment of the court below, and the Defendant determined the urban planning facilities in this case on August 17, 1993, including the land of this case on August 17, 1993.

In light of the records, we affirm the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below as just, and there is no illegality of misconception of facts due to violation of the rules of evidence as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

The grounds of appeal on this point cannot be accepted.

(2) Article 11(1) of the Urban Planning Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) provides that the head of a Si/Gun shall formulate an urban planning to be implemented within his/her jurisdictional urban planning zone in conformity with the contents of the basic urban planning. However, the basic urban planning is a long-term and comprehensive development plan that provides guidance for the long-term development direction of the city and the formulation of the urban planning that presents the future circumstances, which has no direct binding force. Accordingly, the area subject to determination of the urban planning facilities of this case increased beyond that scheduled in the basic urban planning, and

In the same purport, the judgment of the court below that the decision of the urban planning facility of this case is legitimate is just, and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the formulation and decision of the basic urban planning and urban planning

The grounds of appeal on this point cannot be accepted.

(3) The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that, as the Sinsi City Mayor did not take the procedure of public announcement and public inspection of the draft basic urban planning amendment, the relevant basic urban planning is unlawful and that the determination of the city planning facilities of this case based on it is also unlawful. However, this cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal as to the judgment of the court below, which is based on a new fact

B. On the third ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below and the records, after the decision of urban planning facilities in this case was made, the competent primary Mayor specified the urban planning matters on the topographical map indicating the cadastral records pursuant to Article 13 (1) of the Act, and based on the right to approve the topographical map re-entrusted by the branch pursuant to the amended Rules of Gangwon-do Ordinance on Delegation of Administrative Affairs (No. 2007 of October 31, 1991). The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there are no errors in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to Articles 10, 13, and 14 of the Act, and the omission of judgment, the reasons,

The grounds of appeal on this point also cannot be accepted.

C. Since there is no submission of the grounds of appeal as to the dismissal of the claim for confirmation of absence of the determination of urban planning facilities of this case, the appeal on this part is without merit.

3. Therefore, of the judgment of the court below, the part concerning the claim for revocation of the determination of urban planning facilities of this case shall be reversed, and this part of the lawsuit shall be dismissed. The appeal on the remaining claims of the plaintiff shall be dismissed in entirety. The costs of appeal on the dismissed part and the total costs of appeal on the dismissed part shall be borne by the plaintiff who has lost all costs

Justices Cho Chang-hun (Presiding Justice)