2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff is a legal entity established on August 29, 200 for the purpose of “real estate sale and lease business”, “building (real estate) management, and the agency business. Nonparty 1, 2, and 3, a shareholder of the Korea Venture Co., Ltd. (a legal entity established on July 18, 1997) located in the Seoul Central Market (Gu Sungdong Market) located in 14, Jung-gu, Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul, are the Plaintiff’s shareholders.

B. On May 11, 2007, the Plaintiff obtained consent of at least 80% of landowners in a market area to promote a market improvement project pursuant to the Special Act on the Development of Traditional Markets and Shopping Districts with respect to the above Seoul Central Market (hereinafter “Act”). On April 26, 2007, the Plaintiff completed registration of modification to add “large-scale (market) market improvement project” to a “large-scale (market) market improvement project for the purpose of a corporation’s establishment,” and applied for approval of the market improvement project promotion plan to the Defendant.

B. However, on August 3, 2007, the Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff did not meet the requirements for a market improvement project corporation under the Act, and the Plaintiff added Nonparty 4, 5, 6, 7, and 85, who is the owner of land, etc. in Seoul Central Market, to the shareholders, and made up for the Plaintiff’s purpose of business to delete all unrelated contents in the market improvement project. However, on September 7, 2007, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s application for approval of the plan for promoting the market improvement project on the ground that “the Plaintiff was an existing corporation established on August 29, 200 and failed to meet the requirements for a market improvement project corporation under the Act at the time of its establishment” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] without any dispute, Gap evidence 4 through Gap evidence 6, Gap evidence 22-1 through 5, Gap evidence 23, Gap evidence 24-1 through 4, Gap evidence 25-1 through 4, Gap evidence 25-1 through 30, and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) misunderstanding of legal principles

The “market improvement project corporation” under Article 33(2)3 of the Act refers to a corporation that meets the requirements for consent under Article 34(1) of the Act (at least 3/5 of the land size of the market improvement zone and at least 3/5 of the total number of landowners, land, etc.), and it is clear in light of the fact that the existing corporation, new corporation, or new corporation is stated in the evidence No. 1 of the Act (the Inquiry with the Small and Medium Business Administration dated November 27, 2006) that “the market improvement project corporation under Article 33(2)3 of the Act refers to a corporation that satisfies the requirements for consent under Article 34(1) of the Act. Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition rejecting the Plaintiff’s application for approval of the promotion plan for the market improvement project solely on the ground that the Plaintiff is already established, despite the Plaintiff’s fulfillment of the requirements for consent under Article 34(1) of the Act, is unlawful.

B. Violation of the good faith principle

After receiving the above reply from the Small and Medium Business Administration, the Plaintiff asked the public officials in charge of the Defendant, and then asked the public officials in charge of the Defendant, and at the time, the public officials in charge of the Defendant gave administrative guidance to the effect that the Plaintiff would receive the application once meeting the requirements for consent. Ultimately, the Plaintiff made the instant disposition to change the Defendant’s own position and return the application solely on the ground that the Plaintiff is an existing corporation without any relationship with the requirements for consent. The instant disposition is inconsistent with the principle of good faith, and thus, is unlawful.

【Desertion and Abuse of Discretionary Authority

Although the Plaintiff had already made an investment in a considerable amount in order to file an application for approval recommendation of this case, and had made a lot of expenses and efforts to collect consent forms, if the Plaintiff establishes a new three-party corporation and implements the project with the written consent form, this would not only return to the existing efforts, but also go against the interests of the owners, such as the land, etc. that the Plaintiff believed and seeks to promote the project, which is unnecessary, is contrary to the purport of the Act that provides for the market improvement project. Accordingly, the instant disposition is deemed to be excessively harsh to the Plaintiff compared to the public interest to be protected, and thus, it is unlawful to deviate from and abuse discretion.

B. Relevant statutes

Special Act on the Development of Traditional Markets and Shopping Districts

Article 33 (Formulation of Market Improvement Project Promotion Plan)

(1) Any person who intends to obtain approval for a market improvement project promotion plan shall establish a market improvement project promotion plan (hereinafter referred to as "project promotion plan") containing the following matters and apply for recommendation for approval for the project promotion plan to the head of each Si/Gun

1. Scope of the market improvement zone;

2. Necessity for the marketplace improvement project;

3. Necessary measures to be taken with respect to the following matters:

(a) Determination or modified determination of the urban planning facilities in the urban management planning under the provisions of subparagraph 4 of Article 2 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act;

(b) Determination or determination for modification of the district unit planning pursuant to the provisions of subparagraph 5 of Article 2 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act;

(c) Alteration of a specific use area to an area as determined by the Presidential Decree within the limit of a residential and industrial area under Article 36 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act.

4. Measures for the protection of shop occupants under the provisions of Article 49 (1) and (6);

5. Other matters prescribed by Presidential Decree as necessary for the examination of the project promotion plan.

(2) Anyone who is eligible to file an application for recommendation for approval for a project promotion plan pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (1) shall be any of the following persons:

1. A landowner of land, etc. (limited to the case where an individual or corporation alone owns the land);

2. Promotion Committee:

3. A corporation established by landowners, etc. to promote a market improvement project (hereinafter referred to as "market improvement project corporation");

4. The head of a Si/Gun/Gu (limited to cases where the head of a Si/Gun/Gu directly implements pursuant to Articles 41 (3) and 47 (1)).

5. The Korea Housing Corporation established pursuant to the provisions of Article 2 of the Korea Housing Corporation Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Korea Housing Corporation") or a local public corporation established pursuant to the provisions of Article 49 of the Local Public Enterprises Act (hereinafter referred to as the "local public corporation"): Provided, That the foregoing shall apply only to cases falling under the provisions of Article 41 (3).

(3) Procedures and details for the formulation of a project promotion plan, documents to be submitted to a Si/Gun/Gu and other necessary matters shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree.

Article 34 (Special Cases concerning Consent)

(1) Any person who intends to formulate a project promotion plan and submit it to the head of a Si/Gun/Gu shall obtain consent from landowners equivalent to at least 3/5 of the area of land in the market improvement zone and from at least 3/5 of the total number of landowners, such as land.

(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of other Acts, the provisions of paragraph (1) shall also apply where consent is obtained from the establishment authorization of market improvement project cooperatives and the contents of the plan for the market improvement project under the provisions of Article 39.

(3) Methods of calculating the number of consenters to landowners, etc. under the provisions of paragraph (1) and other necessary matters shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree.

C. Determination

(1) Judgment on the misapprehension of the legal principle

㈎ 살피건대, 법 제33조 제2항 제3호 는 사업추진계획 승인에 대한 추천신청을 할 수 있는 자로서 ‘토지 등 소유자’가 ‘시장정비사업을 추진하기 위하여 설립’한 법인(시장정비사업법인)을 규정하고 있는바, 이는 그 규정의 문언 및 전후 문맥에 비추어 보더라도 토지 등 소유자들이 발기인이 되어 설립한 법인으로서, 처음부터 시장정비사업을 목적으로 하는 법인만을 뜻하는 것으로 해석될 뿐이다.

㈏ 한편 원고는 사업 추진의 효율성이나 절세 측면에서 볼 때 기존 법인에 토지 등 소유자가 주주로 참여하고 목적사업에 시장정비사업을 추가하는 방식으로 변경하는 경우에도 시장정비사업법인이 될 수 있다고 보는 것이 합리적이라고 주장하나, 이는 위 문언의 해석에 정면으로 반하는 것일 뿐 아니라, 법이 사업추진계획 승인에 대한 추천신청을 할 수 있는 주체를 해당 구역 내 토지 등 소유자나 추진위원회 외에는 지방자치단체장, 대한주택공사, 지방공사 등 공공성이 강한 경우만을 제한하여 열거하고 있는 취지에도 반하는 것으로서 받아들이기 어렵다.

㈐ 따라서 원고의 이 부분 주장은 이유 없다.

【Judgment on the argument of violation of the good faith principle

㈎ 일반적으로 행정상의 법률관계에 있어서 행정청의 행위에 대하여 신뢰보호의 원칙이 적용되기 위하여는 첫째 행정청이 개인에 대하여 신뢰의 대상이 되는 공적인 견해표명을 하여야 하고, 둘째 행정청의 견해표명이 정당하다고 신뢰한 데에 대하여 그 개인에게 귀책사유가 없어야 하며, 셋째 그 개인이 그 견해표명을 신뢰하고 이에 상응하는 어떠한 행위를 하였어야 하고, 넷째 행정청이 위 견해표명에 반하는 처분을 함으로써 그 견해표명을 신뢰한 개인의 이익이 침해되는 결과가 초래되어야 하며, 마지막으로 위 견해표명에 따른 행정처분을 할 경우 이로 인하여 공익 또는 제3자의 정당한 이익을 현저히 해할 우려가 있는 경우가 아니어야 한다.

㈏ 그런데 이 사건에 관하여 보면, 피고가 이 사건 승인추천신청 당시 원고의 시장정비사업법인 해당 여부에 대하여 신뢰의 대상이 될 만한 어떠한 공적인 견해표명이나 행정지도를 하였다고 인정할 만한 증거는 없고, 오히려 갑 제1호증, 갑 제10호증, 갑 제14, 15호증, 을 제3, 4호증의 각 기재, 증인 소외 9의 증언에 변론 전체의 취지를 모아 보면, 원고는 자체적으로 중소기업청에 질의하여 받은 회신(갑 제1호증)을 근거로 토지 등 소유자들의 동의를 받는 등 시장정비사업을 추진하여 왔고, 피고의 담당 공무원은 오히려 원고의 대표이사에게 내부적 방침이 정해질 때까지 승인추천신청서 접수를 하지 않도록 권유하였던 사실, 담당 공무원은 원고가 이 사건 승인추천신청서를 제출하기 전인 2007. 5. 7. 서울특별시에 시장정비사업법인의 자격에 대한 질의를 하였는데, 2007. 5. 25. 서울특별시로부터 ‘승인추천신청을 할 수 있는 법인은 시장구역 내 토지 등 소유자가 주체가 되고 그들이 시장정비사업을 추진할 목적으로 법 제34조 제1항 에 의한 동의를 얻어 설립한 법인으로 봄이 타당하다’는 내용의 회신을 받았던 사실, 이에 피고 담당 공무원은 재차 확인을 위하여 중소기업청의 2007. 6. 7.자 전자 질의응답민원, 중소기업청의 2007. 7. 9.자 질의 회신 및 2007. 8. 30.자 질의 회신, 서울특별시의 2007. 8. 31.자 질의 회신을 통해 그와 동일한 취지의 답변을 받은 뒤 비로소 이 사건 처분을 하였던 사실을 인정할 수 있다.

㈐ 따라서, 이 사건 처분이 피고의 선행행위와 모순되는 것으로서 신의칙 내지 신뢰보호의 원칙에 위반된다는 원고의 주장은 이유 없다.

【Judgment on the Abuse of Discretionary Authority

In addition, considering the above relevant laws and regulations, there is no room for discretion to the defendant in determining whether the disposition satisfies the requirements for market improvement project corporation. In full view of all the plaintiff's application background, the circumstances leading up to the disposition of this case, and the reasons for the disposition of this case, etc., the disposition of this case cannot be deemed to be in violation of the principle of proportionality because it excessively excessive infringement of private interest of the plaintiff compared to the public interest to be protected by the plaintiff, even if considering all the reasons alleged by the plaintiff. Accordingly, the plaintiff's assertion

3. Conclusion

Ultimately, the defendant's disposition of this case which rejected the plaintiff's application for approval is legitimate, and the plaintiff's claim is groundless, and it is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Jeon Sung-soo (Presiding Judge)