2. The Defendant’s disposition rejecting permission for development activities against the Plaintiff on May 15, 2012 is revoked. 3. The total cost of litigation is borne by the Defendant.

A. As the Special Act on Support in Areas, etc. adjacent to the granted district to the United States of America (hereinafter referred to as "Special Act on Support") enacted on September 4, 2006 entered into force on September 4, 2006, Qua was wholly designated as an area adjacent to a returned district pursuant to Article 2 subparag. 4 of the Special Act on Support and Article 2(2)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Special Act on Support to the United States of America and Article 2(2)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Special Act on Support.

B. The Plaintiff purchased the instant forest land from R on July 21, 2009 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on September 15, 2009.

C. On May 4, 2011, Pursuant to Article 10(1)5 of the Special Act on Assistance, Pursuant to Article 10(5) of the same Act, P.I.K L L L L L 2,50,000 square meters of land in the instant case, the P.S. creation business (hereinafter referred to as the “instant business”) is to be carried out by the private business entity, which is a private business entity that carries out the instant business, to build a temke, residential, commercial facilities, educational facilities, cultural facilities, accommodation, sports facilities, etc.

D. On November 23, 201, the Defendant applied for the modification of the instant comprehensive plan to include the instant project in the comprehensive development plan formulated by the Gyeonggi-do Governor for the development of areas adjacent to the granted district, returned districts and returned district natural disaster areas located in Gyeonggi-do (hereinafter “the instant comprehensive plan”) pursuant to Articles 2 subparag. 5 and 7 of the Special Act on Assistance to the Gyeonggi-do Governor on November 23, 201.

E. In addition, in order to promote the instant project, the Defendant planned to designate 3,720,00 meters of the land of J.I.K.K.L as a restricted area for development activities under Article 63 of the former National Land Planning and Utilization Act (amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013; hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”), including the instant project site, as a restricted area for development activities under Article 63 of the former National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”). On April 27, 2012, the Defendant announced the following in order to hear the opinions of residents in advance pursuant to subparagraph 1 of attached Table 43 and Article 8(1) of the Framework Act on the Regulation of Land Use.

1. Publication name: Hearing and public announcement of residents’ opinions for the designation of a restricted area for permission of acts; permission of development activities under Article 56 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act; permission of development activities for balanced development of restricted areas and securing urban competitiveness; and permission of development activities for the systematic use and management of land, which are received prior to the date of public announcement of restricted areas: 14 days from the date of publication in newspapers, because it is anticipated that the criteria for development activities are significantly different depending on the alteration of specific use area at the time of determining urban development projects to promote urban development

F. On April 27, 2012, the Plaintiff applied for permission to engage in the business of manufacturing signboards and advertising in the instant forest, pursuant to Article 56(1) of the National Land Planning Act, on April 27, 2012, to the Defendant for development activities (hereinafter referred to as “development activities in this case”) that change the form and quality of a site of 454 square meters in the instant forest into a site, change the remaining 37 square meters in the form and quality into a road, and install structures

G. The Governor of the Gyeonggi-do revised the instant comprehensive plan to include the instant comprehensive plan pursuant to Article 7(1) of the Special Act on Assistance on May 9, 2012 and submitted it to the Minister of Security and Public Administration to obtain approval from the Minister of Security and Security.

H. On May 15, 2012, the Defendant deliberated on the inclusion of the instant project into the instant comprehensive plan by the Minister of Public Administration and Security as the project site pursuant to the Special Support Act, and the Defendant deliberated on whether the instant forest is designated as the area subject to the restriction on development permission pursuant to the National Land Planning Act to promote the instant project. In such a situation, if the instant development activities were conducted, it would go against the contents of the instant comprehensive plan and interfere with the implementation of the instant project, resulting in an occurrence of an individual’s property loss and social cost, and thus, the instant development activities should be restricted to prevent such occurrence (hereinafter “instant refusal disposition”).

(i) On May 18, 2012, the Defendant: (a) on May 18, 2012, as an area where a City/Gun master plan or an Urban/Gun management plan is to be formulated; and (b) if a City/Gun master plan or an Urban/Gun management plan is determined, the alteration of a specific use area, specific use district, or specific use district is anticipated and the standards for permission for development activities are expected to be significantly changed accordingly, and there is a special need for restrictions on permission for development activities under an Urban/Gun management plan. For the reasons that, pursuant to Article 63(1)3 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, the Defendant, from May 18, 2012, designated a person whose permission for development activities is restricted for three years from May 18, 2012; and (c) announced it pursuant to Article 63(2) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act on the same day.

(j) On October 18, 2012, the Minister of the Interior and Safety confirmed the comprehensive plan of this case to be amended as stated in the matters pursuant to Article 8(1) and (2) of the Special Act on Support and notified the Gyeonggi-do Governor thereof.

(k) The Defendant is expected to have a private business entity that implements the instant business start the construction work during the first half of 2014 with the approval of the implementation of the project under Article 11(1) of the Special Act on Support in the second half of 2014 after establishing a special purpose corporation to conduct the instant business during the first half of 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 10 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 18 (including paper numbers) and images, the fact inquiry results against the case at the court of first instance, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The defendant's assertion

The defendant asserts that the rejection disposition of this case is legitimate for the following reasons.

1) Since the instant development act violated the contents of the instant comprehensive plan and failed to meet the requirements under Article 58(1)2 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, the instant refusal disposition is lawful.

2) Since the instant development activities interfere with the implementation of the instant project, and thus do not meet the requirements under Article 58(1)3 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, the instant refusal disposition is lawful.

3) Since the instant development act did not meet the requirements under Article 58(1)4 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act as it did not harmonize with the surrounding environment or landscape, the instant refusal disposition is lawful.

4) Even if the development activities in this case meet each of the above requirements, the project in this case was promoted at the time of the instant rejection disposition and the Minister of the Interior and Safety deliberated on whether the project in this case was included in the comprehensive plan in this case, but under the same circumstances, the implementation of the project in this case may hinder the future and the compensation under the premise that the development activities in this case were conducted in accepting the forest and field of this case may be wasted. Therefore, there was a need for significant public interest to restrict the development activities in this case. Accordingly, the instant rejection disposition is lawful.

B. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the rejection disposition of this case is unlawful for the following reasons.

1) The instant development act satisfies the requirements under Article 58(1)2, 3, and 4 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act.

2) The Defendant’s need not be recognized for a significant public interest to restrict the instant development activities.

3) Therefore, the instant rejection disposition is unlawful.

3. Determination

(a) the relevant regulations;

1) The main sentence of Article 56(1) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act provides that “A person who intends to engage in development activities, such as construction of a building, installation of a structure, alteration of the form and quality of land, etc., shall obtain permission from the Mayor, etc.,” while Article 58(1) of the same Act provides that “The Mayor, etc. shall engage in development activities only in cases where the details of an application for permission for development activities meet the scale of development activities prescribed by Presidential Decree in consideration of the characteristics of each specific-use area ( Subparagraph 1), (2) does not violate the contents of an urban/Gun management plan ( Subparagraph 2), and (3) does not interfere with the implementation of an urban/Gun planning project ( Subparagraph 3), and (4) is in harmony with the actual condition of land use in the surrounding area, height of buildings, gradient of land, status of trees, water drainage, water drainage of rivers, lakes and wetlands, etc. (subparagraph 4), and (5) is appropriate to install infrastructure following the relevant development activities, or to secure sites required therefor.”

In addition, Article 2 (Definitions)4 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act is the Special Metropolitan City, Metropolitan Cities, Special Cases

The provisions of subparagraph 11 of Article 2 of the Act on the Designation or Alteration of Land Use, Traffic, Environment, Landscape, Safety, Industries, Information and Communications, Health, Welfare, Security, Culture, etc. (a) concerning the designation or alteration of specific-use area and specific-use district, ② Development-restricted zone, urban natural park zone, urbanization-coordination zone, fishery resources protection zone, plan for the designation or alteration of infrastructure, ③ planning for the installation, maintenance, or improvement of infrastructure, ④ planning for the installation, improvement of urban development projects or maintenance projects, ④ planning for the designation or alteration of district unit planning zones, ⑤ district unit planning planning for the designation or alteration of district unit planning zones, and ⑤ district unit planning for the implementation of urban and Gun management plans, ② urban development projects under the Urban Development Act (a) and ③ rearrangement projects under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents.

Meanwhile, the main sentence of Article 63(1)3 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act provides that the head of a Si, etc. may restrict permission for development activities only once for a period not exceeding three years, subject to deliberation by the Central Urban Planning Committee or the Local Urban Planning Committee, for an area deemed particularly necessary under an urban or Gun management plan, where the basic urban or Gun boundaries or urban or Gun management plans are formulated, and where the standards for permission for development activities are expected to be changed and the standards for permission for development activities are expected to change substantially, if such urban or Gun development activities or urban or Gun management plans are determined.

2) Article 2(5) and Article 7(1) of the Special Act on Support shall establish a comprehensive plan (hereinafter referred to as “comprehensive plan”) for the development of areas adjacent to a granted district, returned districts, areas adjacent to returned districts, and projects to improve residents’ welfare, and various support to the head of a Si/Gun/Gu upon consultation with, or application from, the head of a Si/Gun/Gu, as prescribed by Presidential Decree, and submit it to the Minister of Security and Public Administration. The main sentence of Article 8(1) provides that “The Minister of Security and Public Administration shall confirm the comprehensive plan formulated pursuant to Article 7 and modify the finalized matters thereof after consultation with the head of the relevant central administrative agency.”

In addition, Article 10 (1) of the Special Act on Assistance (excluding those referred to in Article 10 (1) 1 through 4) provides that "the person who intends to implement a project (excluding those referred to in Article 10 (1) 1 through 4) shall obtain approval from the head of the competent Si/Gun/Gu after examining the feasibility, etc. of the plan submitted pursuant to paragraph (3) and Article 11 (5) provides that "the person who is eligible to implement a project pursuant to the annual project pursuant to the provisions of Article 10 (1) of the Special Act on Assistance shall be the State (Article 10 (1) 1), local governments (Article 2), public corporations and quasi-government institutions (Article 3), local public corporations (Article 4), and Article 11 (4) provides that "the person who has the right to approve the project shall, when the project has been approved pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (4)."

Meanwhile, Article 31(1) of the Special Act on Support provides that a project operator may expropriate land, goods, or rights under Article 2 of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects, if necessary for the implementation of a project. Article 31(5) provides that a project operator shall approve the implementation of a project under Article 11 and a development plan for a supported urban project zone under Article 21 shall be deemed a project approval and a public announcement of a project approval under Articles 20 and 22 of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects.

(b) Whether permission for development may be refused on the grounds of defects in requirements under Article 58 (1) 2 and 3 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act.

1) ① Article 2 subparag. 4 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act does not list as one of the Urban/Gun planning plans under Articles 7 and 8 of the Special Act on Assistance, and Article 2 subparag. 11 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act does not list the projects under the above comprehensive plan. ② Article 30 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act provides that an urban/Gun management plan (including an urban/Gun planning facility project) shall be announced if an urban development zone is designated to implement an urban development project; Article 4 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents provides that a public announcement shall be made if an urban development zone is designated to implement an urban development project; ③ Article 11 of the Special Act on Assistance does not provide that the public announcement shall be made if the comprehensive plan under Articles 7 and 8 becomes final and conclusive; and Article 29 subparag. 1 of the Special Act on Assistance does not provide that the project shall be made if the project is approved for the implementation of the project under the comprehensive plan under Article 30 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act and the Urban Planning Act, and its internal Planning Act.

Therefore, the Defendant may not refuse to grant permission for the instant development act on the ground that the instant development act against the content of an urban/Gun management plan, failed to meet the requirements under Article 58(1)2 of the National Land Planning Act, or failure to meet the requirements under Article 58(1)3 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act due to interference with the implementation of an urban/Gun planning project (the Defendant may refuse to grant permission for the instant development act by designating the instant forest as the restricted area for development permission pursuant to Article 63 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act. However, since the instant forest was designated as the restricted area for development permission only after the Defendant issued the instant disposition of refusal on May 18, 2012, the instant forest was designated as the restricted area for development permission, the Defendant cannot refuse

(c) Whether permission for development may be refused due to a defect in requirements under Article 58 (1) 4 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act;

1) In an appeal suit seeking the revocation of an administrative disposition, an administrative agency’s assertion of grounds for a disposition different from those of the administrative disposition at the time of the administrative disposition is not permitted if the facts, which form the basis of the two grounds for disposition, are not identical in a basic point of view, are not identical (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Du4482, Nov. 1, 2004; 2006Du4899, Feb. 8, 2007; 2006Du4899, Feb. 8, 2007);

The grounds for the disposition taken by the Defendant as of May 15, 2012, based on which the instant refusal disposition was rendered by the Defendant, and the grounds for the disposition that the instant development act did not meet the requirements under Article 58(1)4 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act as of May 15, 2012, are not identical in that the facts constituting the basis for such disposition are not identical in basic terms, and thus, it is not permissible to assert the lack of the requirements under Article 58(1)4 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act,

2) Even if the Defendant’s domestic affairs asserted the lack of the requirements under Article 58(1)4 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act as the grounds for the instant rejection disposition, there is no evidence to prove that the instant development act does not bring into harmony with the surrounding environment or landscape, and thus, the permission for the instant development act cannot be denied on the ground that the instant development act failed to meet the requirements under Article 58(1)4

D. Even if the Defendant may refuse to grant permission for development activities on the ground that it is necessary for significant public interest, a private business entity that implements the instant development activities can undertake the instant project by accepting the instant forest land and its ground buildings, etc. pursuant to Article 31 of the Special Support Act after obtaining approval for the implementation of the project under Article 11 of the Special Act on Support for Long-Term In addition, it is difficult to deem that the instant development activities interfere with the implementation of the instant project. In addition, even if the Defendant would grant compensation calculated on the premise that the instant development activities were conducted by a private business entity in the future when the instant development activities were conducted by the Plaintiff, it cannot be said that the said compensation is waste of social costs, unless it is proven that the Plaintiff merely contributed to the increase of compensation and applied for the permission for the development activities

Therefore, it cannot be deemed that there is a need for a significant public interest to restrict the development activities of this case, and the defendant cannot refuse to grant permission for the development activities of this case on the grounds of the above public interest

E. Sub-committee

Nevertheless, since the defendant refused to grant permission for the development activities of this case for the above reasons, the rejection disposition of this case shall be revoked in an unlawful manner.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with the conclusion, and it is so decided as per Disposition by cancelling the rejection disposition of this case.

Judges Hatho

Judges Kim Gin-han