2. The defendant's rejection disposition against the plaintiff on May 2, 201 against the plaintiff and the rejection disposition against the plaintiff on August 16, 201 against the application for the designation of the implementer of an urban development project as of August 16, 201.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

A. E.S. Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'E.S.') proposed that the Defendant designate one hundred and forty-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five, an urban development project to develop the land area of the urban development project. Under the above urban development project plan, the purpose of the urban development project is to develop.

D. On May 25, 2010, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for designation as an implementer of the instant urban development project. However, on July 6, 2010, the Defendant rejected the application on the ground that the interested parties cannot carry out all administrative acts related to the instant project, including the designation of the project implementer, until the court completes its decision upon notification of the fact that the interested parties request the return of the designation of the project implementer and file a lawsuit, etc. (hereinafter referred to as “the first refusal disposition”).

(a) The request for the return of the application for the designation of the project implementer by E.S. S. A., the proposer of the relevant urban development zone, and the application for provisional disposition prohibiting the execution and disposition of the project right for the relevant urban development project, shall be submitted to the Suwon District Court in Sung-nam branch of the competent district court (the applicant: the plaintiff and the third debtor). (The plaintiff and the third debtor) a request for return of the application for designation of the project implementer by the 00 Bank (the creditor of E.S.) and the complaint concerning the relevant land ownership (one representative director and one other than the plaintiff's representative director) shall be submitted to the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office, and the "request for cancellation of the unfair disposal

E. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an application for adjudication with the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission, and the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission revoked the application on the following grounds: (a) on December 30, 2010, the first rejection disposition was deemed unlawful.

Since the Plaintiff owns more than 2/3 of the total area of the project site of this case, it is clear that it satisfies the requirements that can be designated as an implementer of an urban development project pursuant to Article 11(1) of the Urban Development Act.Notwithstanding this, the Defendant is not a substantive reason related to the project prescribed by the Urban Development Act, such as the purpose, content, implementation period, method of implementation, project plan or financing plan of the instant urban development project, but is not a substantive reason related to the project prescribed by the Urban Development Act

It is difficult to see that the discretionary authority was reasonably exercised to make a rejection disposition of this case based on the assertion of fraudulent act, such as the conduct, or criminal complaint.In other words, the defendant's rejection disposition of this case based on civil disputes surrounding the project site of this case or civil complaints filed by the persons related to the project site of this case is unlawful and abused. The plaintiff's appeal of this case is justified.

F. On May 2, 201, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to submit supplementary data, but examined relevant laws including the Enforcement Decree of the Urban Development Act, the Enforcement Rule of the Urban Development Act, the Enforcement Rule of the Urban Development Act, and the Urban Development Business Guidelines on May 2, 201, and then rejected the Plaintiff’s above application on the ground that there are grounds for the following dispositions, such as determining the total project cost, funding plan, and feasibility review, are unclear, and it is difficult to implement the project in a stable and continuous manner (hereinafter “the second disposition of refusal”).

A. A project plan shall be planned within the already approved contents or the scope of relevant laws, but the floor area ratio of 279.71% in a residential area under the submitted project plan is inconsistent with the approved contents. The floor area ratio according to the residential area ratio in a general commercial area is applied on the basis of the floor area ratio stipulated in the City Planning Ordinance of Korea. However, the plan was planned to increase the floor area ratio exceeding 790%, and there is an error in the plan as a unit of 1,484 households with the initial approved number of 1,378 households.B. The plan for financing plans is established to ensure that the project is completed in accordance with the implementation plan by phase, but it is not possible to verify the basis for financing the US$10,000 and the validity of the agreement cannot be confirmed until the commencement of sale ( May 2012).

Although there are losses, such as the burden of the corporation, it is judged that it is difficult to secure the stability of the project and it is difficult to implement the project continuously because the response measures, etc. are not presented.

G. On or around June 7, 2011, the Plaintiff filed an application with the second Defendant for designation as an implementer of the instant urban development project. However, the Defendant decided on August 16, 201 that it is difficult to implement the project in a stable manner due to the following reasons as a result of reviewing relevant laws, such as the Enforcement Decree of the Urban Development Act, the Enforcement Decree of the Urban Development Act, the Enforcement Decree of the Urban Development Act, the Urban Development Work Guidelines, etc., and rejected the said application (hereinafter referred to as "third rejection disposition", and hereinafter referred to as "each of the instant dispositions").

A. Since the floor area ratio was calculated in excess of the criteria of the Urban Planning Ordinance in the application submitted without specific basis for calculation, it may affect the business nature if the density plan is adjusted when the implementation plan and district unit planning was formulated later, and the sales price of the prepared land was calculated as revenue, but the annual revenue ratio was not consistent with the business feasibility analysis, such as estimating the import ratio into the sales price of buildings in apartment and commercial facilities, and the grounds are unclear. (B) The business feasibility analysis is determined to be inappropriate, as it is analyzed that the business feasibility analysis is not secured due to the omission of accumulated losses on the financial statements by the end of 2010, such as sales management expenses, subordinated loans, interest costs, etc., until the completion of the business. As such, it is difficult to determine that the business feasibility analysis is difficult to secure the financial stability of the applicant for the designated project operator due to the increase in the capital expenditure costs and the interest costs of subordinated loans due to the business delay.

H. Meanwhile, on May 29, 2012, the Defendant publicly announced that “The designation of an urban development zone for the instant urban development zone shall be cancelled pursuant to Article 10(1)1 of the Urban Development Act because the application for authorization of the implementation plan was not filed within three years from the date on which the instant urban development zone was designated and publicly announced.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 11, 12, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 (including additional numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. Summary of this defense

The Defendant asserts that the instant lawsuit is unlawful for the following reasons.

1) The designation of an urban development project implementer is premised on the designation of an urban development zone. The project site of this case was cancelled pursuant to Article 10(1)1 of the Urban Development Act since no application was filed for authorization of an implementation plan from May 15, 2009 to May 15, 2012, which was designated and announced as an urban development zone. Therefore, the defendant cannot designate the plaintiff as an implementer of the urban development project of this case. Thus, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as there is no interest in litigation. Thus, Article 11(1)5 of the Urban Development Act provides that in the case of expropriation or use under Article 21 of the same Act, the owner of more than 2/3 of the area of the land excluding the state and public land in the urban development zone may become an implementer of the urban development project of this case. Thus, the plaintiff's project site of this case is partially designated and announced as the urban development project site of this case, or the plaintiff's sale of the land of this case to 30,3500,00 square meters of the total land area of this case.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

1) Determination on the assertion about cancellation of designation of an urban development zone

A) Interpretation under Article 10(1)1 of the Urban Development Act

Article 10 (1) 1 of the Urban Development Act (hereinafter referred to as the " provision on the deemed cancellation") provides that "if an implementer fails to apply for authorization of an implementation plan under Article 17 of the Act by the date on which three years have passed since the designation and public notice of an urban development zone, the designation of an urban development zone shall be deemed cancelled on the day following the third anniversary of the designation and public notice of the urban development zone." Thus, even if the provision on the deemed cancellation is refused to apply for the designation of an implementer of an urban development project and fails to reach the stage at which the implementer can apply for the authorization of an implementation plan as in this case, it is first problematic whether

In principle, when a designating authority intends to designate an urban development zone, it shall establish a plan for an urban development project for the relevant urban development zone (hereinafter referred to as "urban development plan"), (Article 4 (1) of the Urban Development Act; where a designating authority designates an urban development zone or formulates a development plan, it shall be published in the Official Gazette or Official Gazette (Article 9 (1) of the Urban Development Act); where an implementer of an urban development project is designated from among the persons prescribed in the subparagraphs of Article 11 (1) of the Urban Development Act, such as the State or a local government, (Article 11 (1) of the Urban Development Act), and an implementer shall prepare an implementation plan for an urban development project (hereinafter referred to as "Si plan"), and obtain authorization from the designating authority (Article 17 (1) and (2) of the Urban Development Act). In such cases, where an urban development zone was established prior to the designation of an urban development zone, the provisions of deemed cancellation are applied, while a development plan after the designation of an urban development zone is not formulated and announced by 20 years from the date of such designation or announcement, and announcement by 13 days of the urban development zone, respectively.

In full view of the following circumstances recognized in addition to the contents and structure of the provisions related to the Urban Development Act and the legislative intent thereof, if it is deemed that there is no intention for the progress of the project by an implementer of an urban development project, such as failing to apply for authorization of an implementation plan within a considerable period after the designation of a district, the provision on the agenda of cancellation shall be deemed to be a provision for preventing damage suffered by residents in the district due to the cancellation of the designation of an urban development zone and the suspension of various acts following the designation of a district, and allowing the implementer to implement

(1) The application of the provisions governing the cancellation shall be strictly interpreted, considering the fact that the exception to the cancellation of designation of an urban development zone is not recognized under the provisions concerning the cancellation of designation, and that the period leading to the cancellation of designation is relatively short of the rights and obligations of persons related to an urban development project. (2) The provisions governing the cancellation stipulate that "where an implementer does not apply for authorization of an implementation plan pursuant to Article 17 of the Urban Development Act as the grounds for cancellation of designation of an urban development zone," not "authorization of an implementation plan within a certain period," and stipulate "application for authorization of an implementation plan" as the grounds for cancellation. (3) Article 17 of the Urban Development Act provides that "person who is not an implementer obliged to apply for authorization of an implementation plan after the designation of an implementer is not designated," and there is no room for 'application for authorization of an implementation plan after the designation of an implementer, even if the provisions concerning the cancellation of designation of an implementer do not apply even if the designation of an implementer is substantially delayed, it is difficult to designate an implementer as an urban development zone as an implementer without delay.

Ultimately, the provision on cancellation is based on the premise that an implementer of an urban development project is designated. Therefore, if an implementer is designated at the same time as the designation of an urban development zone, there is no room to apply the provision on cancellation. Therefore, the date on which the designation and announcement of an urban development zone was made shall be the initial date between the filing date of the cancellation, but only the proposer was publicly notified at the time of the designation of an urban development zone.In the latter case, if an implementer is designated at the time of the designation of an urban development zone, the unsatisfy notice would be too late, and the date on which the implementer is designated and publicly notified

B) In the instant case:

The fact that the Defendant, who is the designating authority authority of the instant urban development zone, designated a single unit of the instant project site as the instant urban development zone on May 15, 2009 and announced it after formulating a development plan; the Plaintiff applied for designation as the implementer of the instant urban development project; however, the Defendant rejected the said application as the instant disposition; on May 29, 2012, the Defendant announced to the effect that the designation of the instant urban development zone was deemed cancelled pursuant to Article 10(1)1 of the Urban Development Act because it was not applied for authorization for the instant urban development project for three years from May 15, 2009, the date of designation and announcement of the instant urban development zone.

However, as seen earlier, if the legislative intent of the Urban Development Act exists to prevent damage suffered by residents in the area due to various restrictions on activities following the designation of the area and to ensure prompt implementation of the project following the designation of the area, the provision on cancellation under the Urban Development Act is not applicable to this case, as long as the legal dispute has been pending with respect to the plaintiff who applied for designation as the implementer in the status of securing ownership of 92% of the site in the urban development zone, the need to apply the provision on cancellation is as much as possible, and as long as the operator in the urban development zone in this case was not designated as the source, the provision on cancellation premised on the fact that the implementer did not apply for the authorization of the implementation plan cannot be applied to this case.

Therefore, even if three years have elapsed without the application for authorization of the implementation plan from the date of designation and announcement of the instant urban development zone, it cannot be deemed that the designation of the instant urban development zone was legally cancelled, and on a different premise, the Defendant’s aforementioned assertion cannot be accepted (the legislative form of the provision on the rescission shall be deemed to have been cancelled as a matter of course when the designation of the instant urban development zone reaches a certain date and time without any particular act by the designating authority. As such, the notice under Article 10(4) of the Urban Development Act is merely a procedure having the confirmed meaning of public notification of such cancellation, and it shall not be deemed an administrative disposition directly related to the citizens’ specific rights and duties or legal interests. Accordingly, even if the Defendant announced that the instant urban development zone was deemed to have been cancelled on May 29, 2012, even if the designation of the instant urban development zone did not meet the legislative requirements of Article 10(1)1 of the Urban Development Act, the designation of the instant urban development zone still remains valid regardless of the aforementioned notice).

2) Determination as to the assertion on loss of land ownership

Article 11 (1) of the Urban Development Act provides that an implementer of an urban development project shall be designated by the designating authority from among the following persons, and Article 11 (5) of the same Act provides that "the owner of land in an urban development zone (referring to a person who has obtained a license under Article 28 of the Public Waters Management and Reclamation Act and owns at least 2/3 of the area of land excluding State and public land in an urban development zone in cases of expropriation or use under Article 21; and a person who owns at least 2/3 of the area of land in an urban development project excluding State and public land in an urban development zone in cases of expropriation or use under Article 21)" as one of the persons eligible to become an implementer of an urban development project, so the person who owns at least 2/3 of the area of land, excluding

Therefore, if the purport of the entire argument is added to the statement of No. 7, it can be acknowledged that the Plaintiff, after each of the dispositions of this case, owns approximately 62.82% of the land area of this case 80,595.3m in the project site of this case excluding the state-owned and public-owned land (i.e., 50, 595.3/80, 534, 2461-2, 2461-3, and 2461-3, which is part of the project site of this case, to eight savings banks, including the Promotion Savings Bank Co., Ltd., Ltd., and completed the registration of ownership transfer on March 30, 2012. Accordingly, the Plaintiff owned only about 62.82% of the land area of this case excluding the state-owned and public-owned land (i.e., 50, 595.3/80, 534, and 3 decimal).

However, this part of the Defendant’s assertion purports that the Plaintiff lost the eligibility to become an implementer of an urban development project among the lawsuits in this case. The issue of whether the Plaintiff has the eligibility to become an implementer of an urban development project in this case disputing the rejection disposition of an implementer of an urban development project is to be determined based on the law and fact-finding status at the time of each disposition in this case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Du8277, Oct. 11, 2012). If each of the dispositions in this case is revoked, it cannot be ruled out that the Plaintiff’s additional acquisition of land in the project site in this case before the Defendant re-dispositions the possibility of meeting the land size requirements required under Article 11(1)5 of the Urban Development Act, even if the Plaintiff partly lost the ownership of land in the project site in this case, it cannot be said that the Plaintiff has no interest in dispute over the illegality of each disposition in this case, or that the Plaintiff is not eligible. Therefore, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3) Sub-committee

Ultimately, the defense of this case is without merit, and the lawsuit of this case is legitimate.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case is illegal because it deviatess from and abused discretion for the following reasons.

1) Non-existence of grounds for disposition

A landowner who intends to be designated as an implementer of an urban development project shall meet the requirements of Article 11 (1) 5 of the Urban Development Act, and it is sufficient to prepare a project plan attached to the application for designation of an implementer and a financing plan to comply with the plan for an urban development project formulated and publicly notified by the designating authority, and the designating authority shall determine whether to designate an implementer. Nevertheless, the grounds for each disposition of this case are based on erroneous data, such as ① the requirements irrelevant to the designation of an implementer, ② the materials not submitted by the Plaintiff are based on the materials submitted by the Plaintiff, ② the materials not submitted by the Plaintiff, ③ the fact that the requirements are satisfied, ③ the fact that the requirements required for the authorization of the implementation plan were not met, ④ the defect that did not specifically present the contents of the grounds

2) Violation of the principle of proportionality

Even if some of the grounds for disposition are recognized, if the plaintiff cannot be concluded to be unable to properly perform the urban development project of this case, and if the progress of the urban development project of this case is hindered, the defendant may be punished by refusing to authorize the implementation plan of this case or changing the implementer, etc. Therefore, the public interest pursuing each of the dispositions of this case is insignificant or uncertain, while the plaintiff's private interest infringed by investing large funds in the defendant's urban development plan and making it impossible to recover it, is remarkably large and conclusive. Accordingly, each of the dispositions of this case goes against the principle of proportionality.

3) Violation of the principle of trust protection.

The Defendant: (a) designated the instant site as an urban development zone upon the request of S.A.; and (b) established an urban development plan, the Plaintiff believed it and invested a large amount of funds; (c) purchased 92% of the instant project site; and (d) acquired the right to the instant urban development project from S.A. to acquire the right to the instant urban development project on the ground of unfair reasons. However, each disposition of

B. Determination by issue

1) Requirements for designation of a project implementer

A) The urban development project is implemented to build a complex or market with functions such as residence, commerce, industry, distribution, information and communications, ecology, culture, health and welfare in an urban development zone (Article 2 of the former Urban Development Act (amended by Act No. 10580, Apr. 12, 201; hereinafter the same). Such urban development project is implemented in the order of implementation of an urban development project (Article 2 of the former Urban Development Act). Such urban development project is comprehensively conducted in order of ① designation of an urban development zone and development plan of the designating authority, ② designation of an implementer, ③ establishment and

More specifically, in order to designate an urban development zone, a development plan shall be established in principle (Article 4(1) of the former Urban Development Act), according to each subparagraph of Article 5(1) of the former Urban Development Act, matters concerning an implementer of an urban development project (Article 4(4)4 of the former Urban Development Act), population accommodation plan (Article 6), land use plan (Article 7), financing plan (Article 12), urban management plan [Article 15 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Urban Development Act and Article 8(1)11 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Urban Development Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2356, Dec. 8, 201; hereinafter the same shall apply], and detailed methods of establishing a development plan shall be stipulated in Part II of the Urban Development Business Guidelines. The designation authority may directly or in addition to the head of the relevant central administrative agency (excluding the head of a large city), head of the Si/Gun/Gu or an implementer of an urban development project under Article 11(1) of the former Urban Development Act, designate or publicly announce the development plan in the Official Gazette (Article 14(2) of the former Enforcement Decree).

Meanwhile, in principle, a designating authority shall designate an urban development project implementer and publicly announce a development plan (Article 5 (1) 4 of the former Urban Development Act, Article 15 (1) 4 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Urban Development Act), and may designate an implementer upon application or ex officio after the designation of a development plan and an urban development zone is publicly announced. A designating authority shall designate an implementer of an urban development project from among the persons prescribed in the subparagraphs of Article 11 (1) of the former Urban Development Act, such as the State or a local government (Article 11 (1) of the former Urban Development Act), and a person who intends to implement an urban development project shall submit an application for designation of an implementation plan (the name and address of an applicant, and outline of a project implementation plan) under the subparagraphs of Article 19 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Urban Development Act to the designating authority, and a person who shall prepare documents included in the implementation plan under Article 14 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Urban Development Act (Article 16 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Urban Development Act).

B) Examination of requirements for designation of a project implementer

In addition to the provisions on the procedures for the implementation of an urban development project under the former Urban Development Act, the requirements or procedures for application are relatively small compared to the public announcement of a development plan for the urban development zone, which is the preceding stage of designation of an implementer, or authorization of an implementation plan which is the next stage of designation of an implementer. In addition, the requirements or procedures for application are not prescribed in relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as urban development work guidelines, and the detailed guidelines for the preparation of an implementation plan are not prescribed. ② The plan for project, population accommodation plan, financing plan, etc. is planned at the stage of authorization of an implementation plan, and ③ materials, etc. submitted at the stage of designation of an implementer are not publicly announced or made available in the Official Gazette or Official Gazette, unlike the approval stage. ④ The former Urban Development Act is established by integrating and supplementing the provisions on urban development projects under the previous Urban Development Act and the Framework Act on Urban Development by establishing and supplementing the Urban Development Projects, and the legislative purpose of which is to enable various forms of urban development by promoting the participation of the private sector in urban development project is to be implemented under Article 15(1).

In this regard, if a person who applied for designation as an implementer satisfies the legitimate requirements to propose designation of an urban development zone pursuant to Article 11(5) of the former Urban Development Act, and receives such proposal and then files an application for designation as an implementer after meeting the requirements of Article 11(1) of the former Urban Development Act necessary for the designation of an implementer after the designation of an urban development zone and the public notice of a development plan for the urban development zone, barring any special circumstance, it is consistent with the purport that designating the applicant as an implementer should give public notice of the proposer if there is no implementer in the designation and public notice of an urban development project pursuant to Article 15(1)4 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Urban Development Act, or Article 14(4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Urban Development Act.

2) Whether the discretion is deviates or abused

A) Article 15(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Urban Development Act provides that "a person who intends to be designated as an implementer of an urban development project pursuant to Article 11(1) of the Act shall submit an application for designation of an implementer to the designating authority of an urban development zone (referring to the Special Metropolitan City Mayor, a Metropolitan City Mayor, a Metropolitan City Mayor, or a Do Governor pursuant to Articles 3 and 4(1) of the former Urban Development Act)". In light of the form and content of the above provision under Article 15(1) of the former Enforcement Decree, the above provision can only be interpreted as imposing an obligation to submit an application for designation of an implementer to a person who intends to be designated as an implementer, and the designation authority shall be 0 (the main sentence of Article 11(1) of the former Urban Development Act among the persons falling under the subparagraphs of Article 11(1) of the same Act and 15(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Urban Development Act, in principle, 200 (the person who fails to apply for designation of an implementer shall be designated as an implementer.

B) The scope of administrative plans and judicial review

After the urban development plan is formulated and announced, the administrative disposition that is designated by the operator is classified by the type of administrative action, and it is deemed as a kind of administrative disposition, and the deviation and abuse of discretionary power is ultimately attributed to the issue of judicial control over the administrative plan.

The Supreme Court held that “administrative plan” refers to an activity criteria established to realize order at a certain point in the future by integrating and coordinating relevant administrative measures based on professional and technical judgments on administration in order to achieve a specific administrative objective, and that an administrative subject has relatively broad freedom of formation in formulating and determining a specific administrative plan: Provided, That an administrative subject cannot be deemed an unlimited freedom of formation; however, there is a limitation that the interests of relevant persons should be fairly compared and balanced between the public interest and private interest as well as between the public interest and private interest. Thus, if an administrative subject establishes and determines an administrative plan, he/she fails to carry out any matters to be included in the subject of consideration of the profit balancing or fails to meet the requirements of the relevant administrative plan but fails to meet the requirements of the prior administrative plan at a certain stage, he/she may not be deemed unlawful because the administrative plan’s decision is defective in balancing the interests, and thus, he/she may still be deemed unlawful if he/she fails to comply with the requirements of the prior administrative plan’s decision at a certain stage, even if there is no specific reason for the prior administrative plan’s decision.

C) Facts recognized

(1) Circumstances and details surrounding the designation of the instant urban development zone

(A) On June 29, 2005, the basic plan of Sungnam Urban Planning was approved and publicly announced in 2020, which included the content that the instant project site, which is a factory site, is to be developed into a residential and commercial site and to develop the site.

(B) From 2005, UNEA, a special purpose corporation, established for the purpose of implementing the development project of the instant project site, proposed that the Defendant designate the instant project site as an urban development zone to create a residential site, commercial site, and park in the instant project site. The Defendant continuously consulted with the UNEA on the ratio of parks and greenbelts, in particular, followed the procedures necessary to designate the instant project site as an urban development zone, including the public announcement for public perusal to hear residents’ opinions and the deliberation of the Urban Planning Committee.

(C) Around May 2009, E.S. voluntarily submitted an urban development project plan (Evidence A No. 49), which includes a population creation plan and a funding plan as follows. The Defendant approved the contents of the above urban development project plan as it is, and formulated and publicly announced an urban development project plan on May 15, 2009, the instant project site was designated as an urban development zone, and the said urban development project plan was made available to the general public for inspection (hereinafter referred to as the “instant development plan”).

The incentive for the standard floor area ratio below 40% of the total floor area ratio below 790% of the maximum floor area ratio, and the standard floor area ratio below 600% of the total floor area ratio below 40% of the total floor area ratio shall be determined by the district unit plan for the building plan within the site (as

The example of "Cyp items": The number of household units planned for housing planning : 1,378 households and the number of population: 3,790 financing plan - the total amount of project costs: 50,417,00,000 won including the construction cost of 10 billion won in the cultural center (2,000 square meters) - the total amount of the project cost required for the implementation of an urban development project: the total amount of the project cost required for the implementation of an urban development project: 50,417,00,000 won loan repayment loan of KRW 550,417,00,000 for the loan of KRW 3,790 in accordance with the current guidelines.

(2) The details and circumstances of the Plaintiff’s application for designation as implementer

(A) After the designation and announcement of the instant urban development zone, the Defendant urged E.S. to implement the instant urban development project several times, but E.S. did not file an application for designation of an implementer with the Defendant.

(B) Accordingly, as a creditor of EPS SPC, which is a private equity investment fund in the Hong Kong metropolitan area, the HSBC determined that if the urban development project of this case is discontinued, it would not be able to receive a loan to EPSA, and that the Plaintiff acquired the Plaintiff around July 2009 for the purpose of undertaking the urban development project of this case on behalf of ESA.

(C) As seen earlier, the Plaintiff entered into a contract to acquire all rights to the instant urban development project from E.S., and completed the registration of ownership transfer for the remainder of 92% of the land in the instant project site, excluding state-owned and public land, and submitted an application for designation of an urban development project implementer accompanied by the project plan, financing plan, etc. to the Defendant on May 25, 2010.

(3) Details of the Plaintiff’s application and reasons for the first refusal disposition

(A) On May 25, 2010, when the Plaintiff compared the contents of the project plan and the financing plan accompanying the application with the contents of the instant development plan, there is a difference between the acquisition rate of land ownership (the ownership of five parcels E.S. has been secured by E.A., 56,062.1), while the Plaintiff securing ownership of 74,146.6 meters in nine parcels and the annual financing plan (the time of the Plaintiff’s financing plan is later than one year) and the remainder is the same.

(B) However, B, who was going out of the Sungnam market election in 2010, was unable to provide a pledge to completely park the instant project site. On June 3, 2010, immediately after being elected to the Sungnam market, B was completely among the authorization, permission and other administrative actions related to the instant project site to park in the City Mayor at the time of June 3, 2010.

They demanded that they be required to do so.

(C) Around that time, the Defendant sent a supplementary statement to the Plaintiff stating that “A plan for raising funds (such as performance, etc.), the financial capacity of the implementer (data that may indicate the financial status, financial status, etc.), the implementer’s plan for financing (such as loan conditions, annual size of borrowing, and explanatory data, etc.), etc. shall be prepared by referring to the method of preparing the financing schedule under Section 2-8-15-2 (5) of Section 15 of the Urban Development Work Guidelines (Evidence A).”

(D) Accordingly, on June 8, 2010, the Plaintiff supplemented the loan financing plan (Evidence A7-1) on June 29, 2010, and the loan financing plan (Evidence A-7-2) on June 29, 2010, 89% of the project cost is an external deposit, the remainder of 11% is to be raised as the sale price, and it is to be additionally borrowed KRW 6.6 billion from the U.S. Capital Market Limited Company (hereinafter “U.S.”) in addition to the amount of KRW 425 billion already borrowed, and the Plaintiff submitted the loan agreement to the Plaintiff at the Plaintiff’s request on April 16, 2010 to the effect that the lender designated by the U.S.co or the other lender will lend USD 100 million to the Plaintiff, and the loan agreement is, in principle, to the effect that the loan agreement was concluded on June 15, 2010.

(E) On June 10, 2010, HSBC sent a letter (Evidence A 25) to the effect that the defendant and the director general of the city housing bureau, the director general of the city planning division, and the director general of the city planning division set up the plaintiff as a financing corporation and a business entity of the project and controlled the management of the plaintiff, and the HSBC sent a letter (Evidence A 25) to the effect that the plaintiff has promised to do its best to exercise all rights and control so that the plaintiff can carry out all obligations and commitments as the project project implementer in a successful manner.

(f) On June 2010, the policy planning division explained the outline of the entire project site planning of this case and the progress of implementation so far to the Seongbuk-si Market Work Acquisition Committee, when selecting the whole project site of this case as a park, it is necessary to cancel the urban development zone that is currently determined, and there are problems such as budget and legal issues, land owners, legal disputes, etc., and when selecting a proposal to secure additional park area in the project site while maintaining the urban development project of this case, it is necessary to revise the pledge of the new market, and there is a problem of preferential discussion due to incentive grant.

(G) On July 1, 2010, B took the post of Sungnam market. On July 6, 2010, the Defendant issued the first refusal disposition.

(4) Details of supplementary documents submitted by the Plaintiff and the reasons for the second refusal disposition

(A) On February 16, 2011, the plaintiff applied for a ruling of administrative appeals and revoked the first rejection disposition for the same reason, and the defendant presented a supplementary reply to the plaintiff on February 16, 201 that "it is necessary to review the business stipulated by the Urban Development Act and the substantive matters related thereto, such as the contents of the ruling of administrative appeals. However, documents submitted by the plaintiff can not be reviewed due to lack of substantive matters related to urban development projects in accordance with the relevant laws and regulations and business guidelines, such as plans for expropriation and use of land (including project cost criteria and project implementation plan, project feasibility, etc.), project feasibility reviewer fees (including project cost criteria, project feasibility, etc.), and funding plans. Therefore, the plaintiff submitted the relevant documents to supplement them in accordance with the relevant laws and regulations and related guidelines, and submitted them

(B) Around March 3, 2011, the Plaintiff submitted a plan for the expropriation and use of land, ② a financing plan and a project implementation plan, ③ supplementary materials for the review of project feasibility (Evidence No. 19,30 of the A). According to this, the cost of the project is KRW 517,00,000,000, and the revenue is KRW 659,172,360,000, and the revenue is KRW 659,172,360,000, and the cost of the project is fully borne by the Plaintiff by means of self-owned, loan, and sale price use. Specifically, the Plaintiff made the investment in kind of the land secured, and the remainder was financed by borrowing the required amount within USD 100,000,000,000. In addition, on March 30, 2011, the cost of the project was additionally supplemented (Evidence No. 10,797,93,000,05 won).

(C) Meanwhile, on March 3, 2011, and March 8, 2011, 2011, the Hagueland partnership (hereinafter “Hedland Capland”), the latter part of the HSBC, is one of the Asian maximum private equity fund operations companies, and “Hdland,” participating in this project through the Plaintiff, a corporation for which the Hagueland exercises control, participates in the financing of the project and the implementation of the project. Hedland was sent a letter to the effect that “All funds for the progress of the project can be raised, including funds for the acquisition of the site for the project that it did not purchase or the potential cash shortage of KRW 60 billion at the stage of the development of the project” (Evidence 16, 24, Evidence 16, and 24).

(D) On March 3, 2011, Samsung C&T Co., Ltd. reviewed whether it is possible to participate as a contractor in connection with the instant urban development project, but suspended permission due to the situation where it is difficult to facilitate the process of authorization and permission, such as the designation of an implementer of an urban development project for the implementation of the relevant project, and where the conditions of the construction contract are met, it delivered a letter of intent to participate in construction (Evidence A No. 18) to the effect that the final approval is intended to participate as a contractor if it is granted under our procedure (such as a meeting). The Plaintiff submitted it to the Defendant.

(E) The Defendant requested the Korea Institute for Economic Research (hereinafter referred to as the “Korea Institute for Economic Research”) to send data submitted by the Plaintiff relating to the application for designation to the Foundation. On April 201, the Korea Institute for Economic Research (hereinafter referred to as the “Korea Institute for Economic Research”) submitted a report to the Defendant on the following purport: (a) around April 2011, the Korea Institute for Economic Research lack consistency in the Plaintiff’s land creation cost and the presumption of total project cost; (b) the project plan, cost and revenue estimates should be supplemented according to the adjustment of the floor area ratio; and (c)

(F) On May 2, 201, the Defendant again issued the second rejection disposition by reflecting the review opinions, etc. of the Korea Economic Investigation Institute.

(5) Details of the plaintiff's application and reasons for the third rejection disposition

(A) On May 25, 2011, the Plaintiff’s ground for the second refusal disposition against the Defendant

When submitting opinions, it is necessary to supplement the application for designation of the implementer and to request cooperation in the designation of the implementer.

(B) On June 7, 2011, the Plaintiff, at the time of filing an application for designation as an implementer, submitted an opinion that reflected the grounds for the second refusal disposition in the business plan. If necessary, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to process it by clearly stating the type of data and the grounds for the second refusal disposition.

(C) On May 24, 2011, the Plaintiff invoked the development plan of this case’s population accommodation plan as it is, with respect to financing, the Plaintiff will bear the full amount of funds required for the project by means of its own possession, borrowing, and using developed land proceeds. Specifically, the Plaintiff borrowed external funds within KRW 100,000 already agreed with the U.S.C. and other necessary funds from Hodu Investment Management. No later than November 2011, 201, the Plaintiff provided KRW 200,000 to the Defendant at least KRW 30,000,000,000 from Hodu Investment’s loan by the end of July 201, 201, the Plaintiff promised to provide the Defendant with the loan amount of KRW 20,000,000,000 to KRW 10,000,000,0000 to KRW 30,000,000,000,000.

(F) On May 24, 2011, the Hague submitted a request for cooperation (Evidence A No. 23-3) to the Defendant, stating that “The Hague promises the Plaintiff to make its best efforts to complete its business with sufficient funds by directly investing in cooperation with Hosia or arranging a third party’s investment.”

(G) On May 30, 201, when the Military Mutual Aid Association implements the instant urban development project to the Defendant, the Military Mutual Aid Association wishes to smoothly implement this project under the direction of the Plaintiff, and the Military Mutual Aid Association submitted a document (Evidence A No. 23-5) to the effect that it will make its best to successfully complete this project through trust and cooperation with the Plaintiff as an investor in the instant urban development project.

(h) The Defendant again accepted the review service by sending all the materials submitted by the Plaintiff to the Korea Economic Survey and Research Institute. The Korea Economic Survey and Research Institute, around July 201, has a limit to stable business operation at the expense of acquisition of land assets due to unreasonable financing and a long-term requirement due to the period of preparation of the project, and submitted a report containing an opinion that it is inappropriate to designate the Plaintiff as the implementer due to lack of consistency in data for analysis of excessive floor area ratio and business feasibility (No. 9).

(E) On August 16, 2011, the Defendant rendered the third rejection disposition rejecting the Plaintiff’s application. (6) The passage of each of the instant dispositions after each of the instant dispositions, etc.

(A) On November 14, 2011, the Defendant commenced an urban development project in the form of developing the entire site of the instant project as a park, such as designating the instant site as a conservation site for the full-scale park of the instant project site. Around September 17, 2012, the Defendant was promoting an urban development project in the form of developing the entire site of the instant project as a park, by holding a public hearing on the amendment of the Seongbuk-nam Basic Urban Planning Plan around September 17, 2012.

(B) Meanwhile, the Defendant did not have taken into account or promoted the designation of a third party other than the Plaintiff as an implementer of the instant urban development project, and there is no written statement stating that “The floor area ratio on the application for designation of an implementer submitted by the Defendant to the Plaintiff exceeds the floor area ratio standard, etc. set forth in the city planning ordinance in Sungnam-si, and thus, the Defendant requested supplementation therefor.” [The grounds for recognition] The aforementioned evidence, evidence, evidence, 6, 7, 10, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 29, 29, 30, 72, evidence, evidence, evidence Nos. 8, 9, 13, 16, 17, and evidence No. 16, A witness of the first instance trial, C, and D’s testimony, and the purport of the entire pleadings as a whole.

D) Specific determination

(1) Whether the grounds for disposition are recognized

(A) Classification of the reasons for the disposition

The grounds for the Defendant’s dispositions in this case may be divided into two major parts. One is that the floor area ratio on the application for designation of an implementer exceeds the floor area ratio, etc. set forth in the former Urban Planning Ordinance of Sung-nam City (amended by Ordinance No. 2512, Nov. 14, 201; hereinafter the same shall apply) (the grounds for the second disposition and the third disposition of refusal), and the remaining one is that the grounds for the second disposition of refusal are unclear or the business feasibility analysis is inappropriate, and thus, the Defendant failed to secure business stability (the grounds for the second disposition of refusal and the second disposition are part and (b) and (c) of the grounds for the second disposition of refusal and the third disposition of refusal and the subsequent disposition of refusal are divided according to the above classification.

(B) Regarding the floor area ratio and the number of households (the grounds for the second rejection disposition and the grounds for the second rejection disposition and the grounds for the second rejection disposition and the second rejection disposition are partly relevant.

Recognition by adding the aforementioned evidence and facts to the overall purport of the pleading

Examining the following circumstances in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, it is reasonable to deem that this part of the grounds for disposition cannot be the grounds for each disposition of this case regarding an implementer’s application for designation.

(1) In formulating a development plan, a plan on floor area ratio for multi-family housing sites shall be formulated (Article 2-8-4-2, 4-2, and 17(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Urban Development Act); the implementer of an urban development project shall prepare an implementation plan for an urban development project including a district unit plan (Article 17(1) of the former Urban Development Act); a district unit plan shall be formulated in accordance with the standards for formulating a district unit plan pursuant to Article 52(4) of the former National Land Planning Act (Article 38(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Urban Development Act); and a district unit plan shall include restrictions on the use of buildings, building-to-land ratio, building-to-land ratio, building height ratio, minimum or minimum height of buildings, etc. (see Article 52(1)4 of the former National Land Planning Act). On the other hand, although a project plan is required to be submitted even at the time of applying for designation of an implementer of an urban development project (Article 19(2)1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Urban Development Act);

The floor area ratio and the number of households can not be considered as the grounds for the disposition of refusal to apply for the designation of the implementer unless they are related to the designation of the implementer.

② Even if it is possible to consider the floor area ratio or the number of households presented by the applicant at the designated stage, it is difficult to view that the floor area ratio or the number of households presented by the Plaintiff is against the already approved contents. The Plaintiff’s application for the second rejection disposition was based on the data on the floor area ratio of 280% for residential areas and 790% for general commercial areas, and the floor area ratio is the same as the floor area ratio set in the instant development plan. Furthermore, according to the third rejection disposition’s application for the third rejection disposition, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Plaintiff’s application for the second rejection disposition, as long as the Plaintiff’s application for each disposition of this case contains the development plan of this case, based on the floor area ratio or the number of households proposed by the Plaintiff, was calculated differently from the approved contents of the building area ratio or the number of households in the building site. According to Article 67(1)5 of the former Enforcement Decree of the National Land Planning and Utilization Plan, it is difficult to apply the floor area ratio or the floor area ratio of the building site to 40% below the National Land Planning Act.

(C) Determination as to the grounds for a measure that failed to secure the stability of the project due to the uncertainty of the financing plan and the inappropriate analysis of the feasibility of the project (as to the grounds for the first measure of refusal, the grounds for appeal (b), (c), (d), (e) and (b) of the second measure of refusal

Recognition by adding the aforementioned evidence and facts to the overall purport of the pleading

In full view of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that this part of the grounds for disposition is not reasonable.

① From 2005 to 2009, the Defendant had consulted on the designation of the project site of this case as an urban development zone, and had designated the project site of this case as an urban development zone after undergoing basic surveys necessary for the designation of an urban development zone, hearing opinions of residents, etc., and deliberation by the Urban Planning Committee, and formulating the instant development plan. In the development plan of this case, detailed matters concerning the proposer’s funding plan and the project feasibility analysis, etc. arising from the project cost and profit calculation anticipated as a result of the implementation of the urban development project on the project site of this case were established.

② In addition, the financing plan included in the development plan of the instant case is that the project cost is wholly financed with total amount of KRW 550,417,00,000,000. The financing plan submitted by the Plaintiff upon application for designation as the implementer is to be financed with total or partial loan (89%) and there is no big difference in the annual financing plan except that the adjustment is made at the time of application for designation as the implementer.

③ At the time of the second refusal, the documents stating that the U.S. dollars, HSBC, and Hague agree to lend funds necessary for the progress of the instant urban development project to the Plaintiff, respectively, at the time of the third refusal, and the documents suggesting that the U.S. dollars and Hague agree to lend funds necessary for the progress of the instant urban development project to the Plaintiff. However, the Defendant did not specifically examine the actual value of the above documents by asking the holders of the above documents about whether they have the intent and ability to lend funds for the instant urban development project or by directly investigating them (see the report of the Korea Economic Investigation and Research Institute).

However, among them, 66.6 billion won (Evidence 15) provided by 7 U.S. dollars was determined in detail to the extent that it can immediately conclude a loan contract, and at the time of the first application on May 25, 2010, it was within the effective period. The letter of investment guarantee (Evidence 23-2 of Evidence 23) provided by 4 U.S. dollars was also determined in detail, and there was room for raising funds such as purchasing the remaining parts of the instant project site. (C) The Plaintiff was a special purpose corporation that was acquired for the purpose of implementing the urban development project of this case by HSBC or Hague, one of the largest Asian private equity fund management companies, and thus, it was possible that the remainder of the funds will be provided, such as having been promised several times by HSBC and Hagueland (Article 23-2(b).

(4) Where an urban development project is implemented by expropriation or use, land.

In light of the fact that it is inevitable to raise enormous funds in the process of securing ownership, and that a large number of urban development projects conducted by the private sector borrow and proceeds from most of the project funds, it cannot be deemed that the stability of the project is not ensured on the sole basis that the whole project funds are carried out by the loan. However, the Plaintiff already secured funds up to KRW 425 billion, i.e., KRW 77.21 (round 425,000,000, KRW 550,417,000, and KRW 550,417,000) from among the money in accordance with the development plan of this case (round 200,000, KRW 4250,000, and KRW 550,000) in reality, it is difficult to view that the interest rate is excessive in light of transaction practices, and the remaining funds are not secured in view of the agreement on the loan of the US, etc. as seen in the above (in particular, it seems difficult to secure the stability of financing through the second disposal reason.

⑤ Whether the instant urban development project is feasible is matters to be considered at the stage of the designation of an urban development zone and the formulation of a development plan (see Section 16 of Part II of the Urban Development Business Guidelines). Specific project costs are to be determined at the stage of implementation after formulating a development plan (see Section 8 of Part II of the Urban Development Business Guidelines, Section 15 of Part III, Section 2 (5) of Part III, and the evaluation of project costs and feasibility. From this perspective, it is sufficient to submit a brief outline of the development plan regarding the determination of housing construction costs and feasibility (see Section 2 (5) of Part III). From this point of view, construction costs are not included in the development plan of this case, but are excluded from the development plan of this case; the composition of the urban development project costs by item can not be specifically determined at the implementation plan, and the reasons for the Plaintiff’s rejection disposition can not be determined at the time of sale of housing construction costs due to the development and sale of the relevant land to a third party. The reasons for rejection disposition can not be considered as the reasons for the Plaintiff’s disposal of urban development project.

6) The Defendant urged the Defendant to promptly file an application for designating an implementer, and the Plaintiff did not consider or have promoted the designation of a third party, other than the Plaintiff, as the implementer of the instant urban development project. Ultimately, the Defendant appears to have designated an urban development zone through the International Development Project, the initial proposer, as the plan for the implementation of the instant urban development project. The Plaintiff acquired all rights related to the instant urban development project from E.S., and acquired ownership more than UNE as to the instant site for the instant urban development project (the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of 9 lots out of 13 lots of land in the instant site for the project (the third lots of land is owned by Sungnam Si, and the third lots of land is owned by Sungnam, excluding the State and public land, and the remainder reaches 92% of the portion excluding the State and public land in the instant site for the project). Rather, the Defendant secured a stable status than the UNE.

(2) A deviation from or abuse of discretionary power

As seen earlier, it is difficult for the Defendant to accept all of the grounds for dispositions in relation to each of the dispositions in this case. Rather, if the Plaintiff collected data from the Defendant regarding each of the dispositions in this case, there is a lot of room to view that the Plaintiff is capable of performing the urban development project in accordance with the development plan in this case. On the contrary, the public interest intended to protect each of the dispositions in this case is merely to prevent a remote possibility that the instant urban development project may not be performed properly due to the Plaintiff’s failure to secure the project funds properly or failure to establish the implementation plan in compliance with the relevant laws and regulations. Furthermore, considering that the Plaintiff’s considerable amount of 92% of the land excluding the state and public land in the instant project site, approximately 88% of the entire land in the instant project site, and approximately 14,146 square meters/84,235 square meters, and small number of land owners within the instant project site, and thus, the Plaintiff’s purchase of each of the land in this case’s site for development projects cannot be deemed to have been executed for a huge period of time.

Ultimately, all of the grounds for dispositions cited by the Defendant in relation to each of the dispositions of this case are without merit, and the Plaintiff’s application for designation as an implementer satisfies the requirements stipulated in the development plan already announced at the time of designating the urban development zone of this case, and the plan is valid and continued, thereby infringing the Plaintiff’s important interest by refusing it. On the other hand, each of the dispositions of this case is deemed to be unlawful as it deviates from and abused discretionary power based on the illegal grounds, as it is evident that even if the Plaintiff was designated as an implementer at the time of each of the dispositions of this case, it does not meet the requirements required at the time of approving the implementation plan. (Inasmuch as deeming the requirements for designation as the implementer as above, each of the dispositions of this case is deemed to contravene the purpose of the ruling of December 30, 2010 by the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission

3) Whether the principles of trust protection are violated

A) Relevant legal principles

In general, in administrative legal relations, in order to apply the principle of the protection of trust to an act of an administrative agency, the first administrative agency should name the public opinion that is the object of trust to an individual; second, when the public opinion statement of an administrative agency is justified, there is no cause attributable to the individual; third, when the individual should have trusted the opinion statement of the administrative agency; third, when the administrative agency made a disposition contrary to the above opinion statement; fourth, when the administrative agency made a disposition contrary to the above opinion statement, it would result in an infringement of the interest of the individual who trusted the opinion statement; last, when taking an administrative disposition in accordance with the above opinion statement, it should not be likely to seriously undermine the public interest or legitimate interests of a third party (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Du6539, Apr. 28, 2006; 2005Du9644, Apr. 28, 2006); and in determining whether there is a public opinion of an administrative agency, it should be determined by the other party's specific authority position and behavior of the administrative organization.

B) Therefore, in the instant case, the Defendant accepted the proposal for designating the urban development zone of E.I.D., and announced the instant project site as an urban development zone and as the proposer at the time of formulating and publicly announcing the instant development plan, and thereafter urged E.I.D. to file an application for designation of the implementer of the instant urban development project several times or more. As seen earlier, there is room to view that the Defendant expressed a public opinion that E.I.D. would be entitled to designate as the implementer if it requested the designation of E.I. as the implementer of the instant urban development project.

However, as to whether the Plaintiff may assert a violation of the principle of reliance protection, it cannot be deemed that there was an expression of view that the Defendant, first of all, expressed that the Defendant would designate E.S. as the implementer of the instant urban development project, and that the transferee of the right to the instant urban development project from E.S. would be designated as the implementer.

In doing so, the Plaintiff cannot assert a violation of the principle of trust protection on the ground that the Defendant expressed a public opinion against the Plaintiff. ② Next, the right to the instant urban development project by E.S. is merely limited to the status of the proposer who has not been embodied, and even considering its specific position, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff is subject to transfer under private law as the subject of rights under public law. Therefore, even if the Plaintiff agreed from E.S. to acquire all the rights to the instant urban development project from E.S., on the ground that the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with E.A. to transfer all the rights to the instant urban development project, it cannot be argued that the Plaintiff’s expression of public opinion by E.S. to E.A. is the same as the Plaintiff’s expression of public opinion. Accordingly, the Plaintiff cannot be invoked as its own expression of public opinion

Therefore, this part of the claim based on the premise that there was a defendant's expression of public opinion against the plaintiff is without merit.

4) Summary of the judgment

A) The issue is raised

As above, although the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, it is deemed that the urban development project of this case is more than six years since the designation and announcement of an urban development zone was made at the time of the closing of the party deliberation, and it is still not possible to designate an implementer even though six years or more have passed since the designation and announcement of the urban development zone was made, so it is a problem whether the cancellation of each disposition of this case is appropriate for public welfare, and therefore, it is necessary to review the necessity of the ruling

B) Determination

In order to render a ruling on assessment, cancellation of a disposition must be recognized to be considerably inappropriate for public welfare. On the other hand, maintaining an illegal administrative disposition is against public welfare, so the ruling of assessment should be recognized under extremely strict requirements. In determining whether it is substantially inappropriate for public welfare, which is the requirement thereof, the determination of whether it is applied should be made by comparing and comparing the necessity to cancel or modify any unlawful or unreasonable administrative disposition and the situation against public welfare that may arise therefrom (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Du13828, May 28, 2009).

First, we examine the situation contrary to the public welfare that may arise from the cancellation of each of the dispositions in this case. If the purport of the entire arguments is added to the facts acknowledged earlier, it is difficult to view that a large number of interested parties occur even if the project is not deemed to have reached a specific progress stage, since the designation and public announcement of an urban development zone for the project site was already passed, the Defendant announced that the designation of an urban development zone for the project site in this case was cancelled. After promoting a new project to park the project site in this case, it was going through the procedure to revise the Framework Act on Gender Nam in 2020 to promote the project site, and the Plaintiff currently owns the land of 62.82% less than 2/3 of the land except the state and public land among the project site in this case, and even if accepting each of the claims in this case, it is difficult to conclude that the Plaintiff is unable to additionally acquire the ownership of each of the above land as necessary for the designation of the implementer in this case, and thus, even if it does not meet the specific requirements for the designation of each of the land in this case.

On the other hand, with regard to the necessity of cancelling and changing each of the dispositions of this case, it seems that the plaintiff's implementation of the urban development project of this case is the most effective method as the implementer in order to compensate for the damage. In full view of the fact that the plaintiff submitted a business plan (Evidence A74) as of July 2015, which was the day before the closing of argument of this case, and presented a specific implementation plan for the urban development project of this case, and expressed the intent to proceed with the urban development project of this case when each of the dispositions of this case is revoked, it is highly necessary to recover the plaintiff's damage and implement the development project of this case according to lawful procedures by cancelling each of the dispositions of this case.

Therefore, the revocation of each of the dispositions of this case cannot be deemed inappropriate for the public welfare, and thus, the plaintiff's claim cannot be dismissed.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is accepted, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, so the plaintiff's appeal is accepted, and the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim is accepted as per Disposition.

Judge Seo-dae

Judge Voluntary Award