2. The defendant's decision of objection against the plaintiff on May 14, 2002 shall be revoked.

3. The total cost of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and the defendant supplementary intervenors, including the cost of participation in the lawsuit.

(a) Determination of urban planning facilities;

- Notice of Incheon Metropolitan City No. 1997-217 of September 13, 1997

(2) Authorization and notice of implementation plan (amended notice)

- Urban planning projects (waste disposal facilities: Construction and scrap crushing facilities)

- Notice No. 1998-58 of March 7, 1998, Notice No. 1998-129 of June 12 of the same year (hereinafter the amended Notice), Notice No. 1998-157 of July 30 of the same year, Notice No. 1998-191 of October 31 of the same year, Notice No. 1999-275 of July 7, 1999, Notice No. 1999-119 of the Public Notice No. 199 of October of 10 of the same year, Notice No. 2000-143 of August 21, 200, Notice No. 2001-122 of July 18, 201, and Notice No. 202-147 of July 8, 2002

- Business implementation site: 84,000 square meters per day, Seo-gu, Incheon, 212-2,000 square meters;

- Subparagraph 4 of the conditions of authorization (s) (s)

This business site is based on five invitations initially promoted by the administrative agency, and it is necessary to change the objection by the waste disposal business permission authority and to follow the direction of the waste disposal business permission authority when there occurs a ground for change of land use plan due to the placement of waste disposal facilities except road and landscape.

(3) Project operator: Plaintiff;

(4) Ruling on expropriation by the local Land Tribunal of Incheon Metropolitan City on November 23, 2001

- Land subject to an application for adjudication: Land within the project execution site in Incheon Seo-gu, Seo-gu, 212-18 42 m22 m2,000 m2,000 m26,585 m2 (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”);

- Contents of adjudication: The plaintiff's application for adjudication on expropriation is dismissed on the ground that it is unreasonable to grant the right to accept to the plaintiff without fulfilling the conditions of authorization for implementation (paragraph 4 of the conditions for authorization).

(5) The defendant's ruling of objection on May 14, 2002 (hereinafter "the ruling of objection of this case")

- Contents of adjudication: The plaintiff's objection is dismissed for the same reasons in the acceptance ruling.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact-finding without any dispute, Gap 2 and 6 evidence, the fact-finding results of the court of first instance to Incheon Metropolitan City, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the judgment on the objection of this case was unlawful

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

(1) Under subparagraph 4 of the conditions for authorization of an implementation plan, five intermediate waste treatment companies, which originally moved into the project zone, entered into an agreement to move the facilities, equipment, and red waste of the existing business establishment into into into the project zone. Accordingly, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s assistant participant corporation (hereinafter “Dongdong Corporation”) had already completed the relocation, and the Plaintiff’s assistant participant corporation (hereinafter “Dongdong”) had already been transferred, and the Plaintiff’s assistant participant corporation (hereinafter “Seodongdong”) and Seo River Corporation (hereinafter “Seo River”) are also a plan to immediately move the plan. While the permission of the waste treatment business was revoked, the Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan City (hereinafter “Seo River Construction Environment”) which is the remaining one company (hereinafter “Seo River Construction Environment”) was revoked, the head of Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan City (hereinafter “the head of Seo-gu”) who is the authority with authority to permit waste treatment business divided the remaining four companies, and the Plaintiff’s execution plan was rejected on the ground that it did not meet the above conditions for 10th of the project implementation plan.

(2) Even if the above conditions for the authorization of household affairs are not satisfied, the local Land Tribunal of Incheon Metropolitan City or the defendant cannot make an adjudication of the above contents that make it impossible for the project to be implemented, unless the approval of the project itself is revoked.

B. Determination

In full view of the results of the fact-finding and the fact-finding on the Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan City of the court of first instance, the Mayor of Incheon Metropolitan City determined urban planning facilities as above in order to combine the existing construction waste intermediate disposal facilities around the Seoul Metropolitan Area and to efficiently manage the urban environment by preventing the productive arrangement of construction waste disposal facilities. In addition, the Mayor of Incheon Metropolitan City determined urban planning facilities as above in order to efficiently manage the urban environment by putting together the existing construction waste intermediate disposal facilities installed around the Seoul Metropolitan Area reclamation zone, and at the same time, he recognized that the existing five construction waste intermediate disposal business entity, the Plaintiff and the Yong-gu Environment Corporation (after the change of the trade name to Dong Corporation), the Sam-gu Environment Corporation (after the change of the trade name to Seodong Corporation), the Sam-gu Construction Corporation (after the change to Seodong Corporation), and the Sam-gu Construction Environment, which is the basis of the fact that the change is required by the waste disposal business permission authority (the

If it is difficult for the Plaintiff, who is a project implementer, to collectiveize the existing construction waste interim disposal facilities distributed around the Seoul Metropolitan Area according to the original purpose of the determination of urban planning facilities as a result of the Plaintiff’s failure to comply with such authorization conditions, the said implementation plan may be modified or revoked depending on the fact that the said authorization conditions are not met even if the Plaintiff obtained such authorization conditions.

With respect to the fulfillment of the above conditions of authorization, there was no dispute between the plaintiff and the Dong Gun - among four enterprises except for those whose permission for waste disposal business was revoked, and according to the evidence Nos. 1, 7, and Eul 7 of the evidence Nos. 3 and the evidence Nos. 1, 7 of the above project implementation district. On January 15, 1997, before the determination of the above urban planning facilities, if the urban planning facilities were decided to be installed on the site of waste disposal facilities of the project site of this case on Jan. 15, 1997, the status of the land located within the above implementation district was leased to the head of Seo-gu Office within 2 months from the date of the determination of the urban planning, and thereafter, the agreement was prepared to transfer the existing facilities, equipment, and hostile waste to the head of the above project site of this case, and the fact that the above project site of this case could not be transferred to the head of the above project implementation district before the designation of the head of the Gu, and the fact-finding of the above project site of this case can be acknowledged as follows.

However, Article 68 (2) of the Urban Planning Act (amended by Act No. 6655 of Feb. 4, 2002) provides that when the implementation plan is publicly announced pursuant to Article 63 of the same Act, the approval of the project and its public notice under Articles 14 and 16 of the Land Expropriation Act (amended by Act No. 6656 of Feb. 4, 2002; hereinafter the same shall apply) shall be deemed to have been granted and given. Such approval of the project has the nature of administrative disposition that establishes a specific right of expropriation under the condition that it shall go through a specific procedure, and the scope of the object to be expropriated is determined and its right to be expropriated has become effective as a right of public law, which can oppose the present and future right holder. Furthermore, the Land Expropriation Act shall decide on the public interest of the project, which belongs to the first stage of expropriation and use, and specific decision to expropriate and use after the approval of the project shall be entrusted to the land expropriation committee, see Article 97 (1) of the Land Expropriation Committee's Act.

Thus, as seen above, even if there was a situation in which it is difficult to move the hydro-power environment and Seo River to the project execution district at the time of the above expropriation decision, and therefore, even if there was no need to expropriate the project execution district, the authorization of the above project plan has not been revoked due to administrative litigation or administrative disposition by the administrative agency, the Land Tribunal of Incheon Metropolitan City cannot make a decision that makes it impossible for the above project approval and make it impossible for the group of waste disposal facilities, which are the project purpose project of this case, to dismiss the plaintiff's application for land expropriation itself, and eventually, the above expropriation decision by the Land Tribunal of Incheon Metropolitan City and the defendant's objection to the above contents are all unlawful.

Although it is reasonable for the Defendant’s Intervenor to jointly implement the instant project, the Mayor of Incheon Metropolitan City designates only the Plaintiff as the project implementer, and the authorization of the implementation plan itself is reasonable. However, such circumstance alone does not lead to a significant and objective defect in the authorization of the implementation plan. Therefore, the above assertion is without merit.

In addition, Defendant Intervenor’s Intervenor’s assertion that the implementation period of the instant project was expired on June 30, 200, and since the project period was not extended thereafter, the Plaintiff could no longer continue the said project. Thus, the instant lawsuit is without any interest in litigation or the land tribunal’s ruling on expropriation itself became impossible. Thus, according to the records Nos. 1 and 11-2, the Plaintiff and Plaintiff Intervenor’s Intervenor’s motion for modification of the urban planning implementation plan seeking extension of the project period is deemed to have expired after the application for modification of the urban planning implementation plan for the extension of the project period was filed with the Mayor of Incheon Metropolitan City, but it is recognized that the project period had expired as a result, and the Plaintiff’s Intervenor’s motion for extension against the Mayor of Incheon Metropolitan City through administrative litigation, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the authorization of the instant implementation plan was terminated on the ground that the project period was not extended, and the legitimacy of administrative disposition should be determined based on the circumstances at the time of the disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Nu388, etc.).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the ruling of the objection of this case is unlawful, the plaintiff's claim for the revocation of the ruling of this case shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and since the ruling of the court of first instance is unfair on the grounds of its conclusion, it is so decided as per Disposition by the cancellation of the ruling of this case.

Judges Yang Dong-hee (Presiding Judge)