B. Whether the Seoul Special Metropolitan City’s declaration of non-permission to sell the Si-young apartment is an administrative disposition (negative)

B. The Seoul Metropolitan Government's "Guidelines for the Special Improvement of the Units of Si-young Apartment for the Demolition Residents" is merely an administrative guidelines within the Seoul Metropolitan Government, and it shall not be granted the right to apply for parcelling-out under public law to a person prescribed in the guidelines, and thus, the declaration of non-permission to sell the Si-young Apartment is not an administrative disposition subject to appeal litigation.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. The act of an executor of an urban planning project to acquire land necessary for such project by consultation is not merely a juristic act conducted as a private economic entity, and it is not an administrative disposition under public law conducted in superior status as a public authority, and thus is not subject to administrative litigation.

In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that the lawsuit against the defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor, which seeks confirmation of the existence of consultation on the land of this case as an appeal litigation, is unlawful, and there is no violation of the theory

2. The Seoul Metropolitan Government's guidelines for the improvement of special apartment units for the removal residents are merely an administrative guidelines within Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and it is not a person under the guidelines for the improvement of special apartment units. Thus, it is the opinion of party members that the declaration of refusal to sell the Si-young apartment units in Seoul Special Metropolitan City cannot be viewed as an administrative disposition subject to appeal litigation (see Supreme Court Decision 88Nu5389, Apr. 25, 1989; Supreme Court Decision 87Nu1214, Nov. 26, 191; Supreme Court Decision 91Nu352, Nov. 26, 1991; etc.) and it is not recognized that a lawsuit for performance of obligations under the current Administrative Litigation Act is not instituted. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below to the same purport is just and it is not accepted as it is related to all other arguments.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)