[2] Whether a disposition should be taken in accordance with the changed criteria for permission when a change occurs after an application for permission was filed (affirmative with qualification)

[3] In a case where a construction company applied for the approval of the housing construction project plan at the time of the implementation of the former Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Land, and thereafter, the City Mayor rejected the above application due to the abolition of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Land, the case holding that the law applicable at the time of the above disposition is not the previous Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Land, but the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, because the City Mayor's acceptance of the above

[2] 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 permission permission was applied, 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 due to delayed disposition without justifiable grounds.

[3] In a case where a construction company applied for the approval of the housing construction project plan at the time of the implementation of the former Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Land, and thereafter, the City Mayor rejected the above application due to the abolition of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Land, the case holding that the laws applicable at the time of the above return are not the previous Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Land, but the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, since the City Mayor's acceptance of the above application

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

Article 12 (3) of the Addenda of the former National Land Planning and Utilization Act (amended by Act No. 6841 of Dec. 30, 2002, hereinafter referred to as the "National Land Planning Act") provides that "if a person who has the authority to draft a plan for utilization of the national territory externally publishes his intent to establish a plan for utilization of the national territory in the Official Gazette or daily newspapers, it shall be governed by the previous Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory." This purport is to apply the former Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Land to protect the trust of such general public, taking into account that if the person who has the authority to draft a plan for utilization of the national territory externally publishes his intent to establish a plan for utilization of the national territory, he shall have the public trust in order to protect the trust of such general public, and if such a procedure is not implemented, it shall be subject to the new Act on the Utilization and Management of National Land, and there is a reasonable ground to distinguish it from it. Therefore, the above provision violates equality rights under the Constitution.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to equality under the Constitution.

2. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3

The administrative disposition, such as permission, etc., shall, in principle, be dealt with according to the Acts and subordinate statutes at the time of the disposition and shall not be complied with at the time of the application. Although the permission criteria have been changed after the application for permission, the permission-granting agency shall accept the application for permission and make a disposition in accordance with the changed permission standards unless the permission standards have been changed at the latest (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Nu1087, Aug. 20, 1996; 2003Du3550, Jul. 29, 2005).

The court below determined that the disposition of this case is lawful without examining the remainder and the remainder of the plaintiff's assertion on the ground that the application of this case was made as the ground for disposition of this case on January 1, 2003 under the National Land Planning Act and the disposition of this case, which rejected the application of this case on January 4, 2003, was not published in the Official Gazette or daily newspaper, etc., and in light of other circumstances as stated in its reasoning, the law applicable at the time of the disposition of this case is not the previous Act, but the National Land Planning Act, which is not the Act on December 27, 2002, but the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, which is not the Act on the Acquisition and Management of the National Territory, and thus, it is unlawful because the application of this case was in violation of the previous Act on the Management and Utilization of the National Territory, and thus, it should be rejected.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the status of a public official under the Constitution, Article 17 of the Administrative Procedures Act.

3. Conclusion

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

Justices Kim Yong-dam (Presiding Justice)