[2] Whether a prior decision under the former Building Act is binding on the approval of a housing construction project plan under the Housing Construction Promotion Act (negative)

[3] Whether a new criteria for permission should be imposed when the criteria for permission are changed after filing an application for permission (affirmative)

[4] Whether the administrative agency’s assurance of intention or the name of public opinion can be automatically invalidated after the expiration of the term of validity stipulated in the administrative agency’s own agreement (affirmative)

[5] The case holding that even if an administrative agency receiving the application for the approval of the housing construction project plan refuses the approval on the grounds of an urban planning decided and publicly announced later after the expiration of the processing period, it does not delay the disposal without justifiable grounds

[2] A prior decision system under the former Building Act (amended by Act No. 4723 of Jan. 5, 1995) is only the prior decision system under the Housing Construction Promotion Act, and a prior decision system under the Housing Construction Promotion Act was received prior to the establishment of the prior decision system prior to the application for a housing construction project, the administrative agency is bound by the prior decision under the relevant Building Act, and the housing construction project plan under the Housing Construction Promotion Act is not necessarily required to be approved, and it is not illegal solely on the ground that the refusal disposition for a housing construction

[3] Administrative disposition such as permission shall, in principle, be taken according to the law and permission standards at the time of disposition, and shall not be complied with at the time of the application. Even if the permission standards have been changed after the application for permission, the permission-granting agency shall accept the application for permission and take a disposition in accordance with the changed permission standards, unless the permission standards are changed late and without justifiable grounds.

[4] Even if an administrative agency ordered the other party to take any measure, or ordered the other party to present his/her public opinion, if there was no other party's application within the effective period, or if a factual and legal situation changes after the other party's statement of intent or public opinion was made, such statement of intent or public opinion will be invalidated without waiting for the administrative agency's particular declaration of intention.

[5] The case holding that even if an administrative agency receiving the application for the approval of the housing construction project plan refuses the approval on the grounds of an urban planning decided and publicly announced later after the expiration of the processing period, it does not delay the disposal without justifiable grounds

A. Based on the evidences of the city, the court below held that, even if the plaintiff who completed the registration of the housing construction project on the land of this case, was not entitled to review the location of the housing construction project under the Regulations on the Deliberation of Location of the Daejeon Metropolitan City Urban Planning and Housing Construction Project (which was not repealed by Daejeon Metropolitan City Directive No. 751, May 14, 1993) as of December 19, 190 for the construction of apartment on the land of this case, the court below, after the lapse of 1 year from January 27, 1993, issued a prior decision of the suspension disposition under the Building Act, which was issued by the head of the Daejeon Metropolitan City and the Seoul Metropolitan City Ordinance No. 957, which was issued by the head of the Daejeon Metropolitan City and the Seoul Metropolitan City Ordinance No. 911, which was not entitled to review the construction plan of this case on the land of this case, and the defendant's new rejection disposition that was rejected by the head of the Daejeon Metropolitan City and the Daejeon Metropolitan City Ordinance No. 96. 94.

B. According to the provisions of Article 32-2 (2) and (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Construction Promotion Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14447 of Dec. 23, 1994), the issue of whether to approve the housing construction project plan shall be decided within 60 days (including 30 days after the consultation period with the head of the relevant agency) after the receipt of the application unless there is a justifiable reason. However, the above provision is merely a warning provision that stipulates that the approval work should be handled as soon as possible, and it cannot be deemed a mandatory provision or an effective provision. Thus, the rejection disposition of this case shall not be deemed unlawful on the ground that the defendant issued the rejection disposition after the lapse of the above period.

C. However, according to the records, the defendant's rejection disposition of this case is not bound by the deliberation and resolution of the above Gu administration mediation committee, but was made by reference to the deliberation and resolution of the above Gu administration mediation committee. Thus, the rejection disposition of this case cannot be deemed illegal after the deliberation and resolution of the above Gu administration mediation committee.

D. In full view of the provisions of Articles 7 and 8 of the Building Act (amended by Act No. 4919 of Jan. 5, 1995), Article 32-4, Article 33 of the Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 4723 of Jan. 7, 1994), and Article 9(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 4723 of Jan. 7, 1994), while the Building Act regulates the general public in constructing 20 or more detached houses or 20 or more households, the subject of regulation of the above two Acts are different. The effect of the prior decision under the Promotion Act is that the prior decision under the Building Act is regarded as being subject to the prior decision under the Building Act, and the prior decision under the Building Act does not necessarily mean that the prior decision under the Building Act is not necessarily permitted for the reason that the prior decision under the Building Act is not necessarily subject to the prior decision under the Act, but it does not necessarily mean that the prior decision under the Building Act should be included the prior decision under the Act.

E. In principle, an administrative disposition such as permission should not be dealt with by the law at the time of the disposition and the standard at the time of the application. Although the permission permission was modified after the application for permission, it should be taken in accordance with the changed permission standards unless the permission standards were changed late (see Supreme Court Decision 92Nu4390 delivered on February 12, 1993). According to the records, the head of Daejeon Metropolitan City Mayor issued an order to an external institution for research service regarding the construction regulation plan for the purpose of preserving the urban landscape surrounding the Seosansan City before the application for approval was made, and the result of the original research service should be viewed as being made until December 31, 193, which is one-month from the date of the application for approval, and it is not necessary to establish an urban planning plan (the maximum area) according to the results of the research service and to make a decision on the approval of the above plan as to whether it is necessary to grant approval according to the changed urban planning plan's approval standards, and it is not necessary to grant approval approval approval for the above 940 days prior to the above.

F. Even if an administrative agency ordered the other party to make an offer or an official opinion that he/she would take a certain disposition, if the other party did not make an application within the effective period, or if a factual and legal situation is changed after the other party’s offer or an official opinion was made, such an offer or an official opinion will be invalidated without waiting the administrative agency’s particular expression of intent. As seen earlier, the prior decision under the Building Act is merely an expression of intent to take a construction permit under the Building Act, and it cannot be deemed an expression of intent or an official opinion that the Defendant would take a disposition of approval of the housing construction project plan under the following Building Act. Further, even if the location review and the deliberation of the building construction plan as mentioned above are an offer or an official opinion that the head of the Daejeon Metropolitan City and Metropolitan City Mayor would approve the housing construction project plan, it cannot be said that the Plaintiff’s application for approval has not been invalidated within one year, and thus, even if the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s prior decision and the building construction plan under the Building Act, it cannot be deemed unlawful.

G. As seen earlier, as long as the defendant can make the instant refusal disposition on the ground of the altitude restriction in the urban planning existing at the time of the disposition, the instant refusal disposition cannot be deemed as an infringement of property rights by retroactive legislation even if such urban planning, like the theory of lawsuit, is effective in the future and is not retroactive to the time of the application for approval.

H. Therefore, the court below's rejection of the plaintiff's assertion on the ground that the rejection disposition of this case cannot be deemed unlawful as seen above is just, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, the omission of judgment, the misapprehension of legal principles, the violation of the Supreme Court's precedents, and the violation of the Constitution as pointed out in the theory of the lawsuit, and there is no error of law such as violation of the

2. We examine the grounds of appeal as to the conjunctive claim.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's conjunctive claim for damages on the premise that the rejection disposition of this case is unlawful, but the plaintiff's conjunctive claim for damages is dismissed by the judgment of the court below on the ground that the rejection disposition of this case is legitimate. The above disposition of the court below is just, and there is no error of law in the omission of judgment as pointed out by the plaintiff. The ground for appeal is without merit.

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 on the bench.

Justices Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)