(a) Whether the Mayor/Do Governor entrusted with the authority to dispose of such disposition as the management and disposal plan under Article 41 of the Urban Redevelopment Act may re-entrust it to the head of

B. Whether the so-called authority delegated affairs can be re-entrusted by the ordinances of local governments

(c) A case where the part of municipal ordinance concerning re-delegation of disposition authority is null and void beyond the scope of the legislative authority;

(d) Criteria to determine whether a defective administrative disposition is void automatically;

(e) The case holding that the disposition of the head of the Gu based on the invalid municipal ordinance is serious but it cannot be deemed clear that the disposition is not void as a matter of course.

(f) The case holding that since a public notice of approval for the management and disposal plan is not complied with the laws and regulations, its illegality is clear, it cannot be said that the authorization belongs to a serious defect to the extent that it becomes void

(g) Where an administrative disposition is taken by public notice, the initial date in reckoning the period for requesting administrative appeal;

A. According to Article 8 of the Urban Redevelopment Act and Article 58 (1) 12 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the authority of disposal, such as authorization of a management and disposal plan under Article 41 of the Urban Redevelopment Act, which belongs to the authority of the Minister of Construction and Transportation, is delegated to the head of the Gu, the Mayor/Do Governor does not have any provision that can re-entrust it to the head of the Si/Gun, but there is a general provision concerning re-election under Article 5 (1) of the Government Organization Act and Article 4 of the Regulations on Delegation and Entrustment of Administrative Authority based thereon, so the Mayor/Do Governor may re-entrust

(b)The affairs concerning the authorization, etc. of the management and disposal plan under “A” fall under the so-called delegated affairs of the authority that are delegated to the head of the local government, and thus cannot be re-entrusted by the Mayor/Do Governor to the head of the local government, etc. under the ordinances of the local government, and can only be re-entrusted under the regulations established by the head of the local government after obtaining the approval

C. In a case where the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City enacted the regulations under Article 4 of the Regulations on Delegation and Entrustment of Administrative Authority, which is delegated by the Minister of Construction and Transportation, and re-endorses to the head of the Gu pursuant to Article 5 (1) [Attachment] of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on Delegation of Administrative Authority (Ordinance No. 2654 of October 8, 1990), the part concerning the re-election of the above disposition authority among the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on Delegation of Administrative Authority is invalid because it is subject to the state affairs (agency delegated affairs)

(d) In order for a defective administrative disposition to be null and void as a matter of course, it must be objectively apparent that the defect is a serious breach of an essential part of the law, and in determining whether the defect is significant and apparent, it should be required to examine the purpose, meaning, function, etc. of the law from a teleological perspective and to reasonably consider the specificity of the specific case itself.

E. The case holding that, in light of the fact that a disposition, such as authorization of a management and disposal plan based on the provisions of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on Delegation of Administrative Authority, which is null and void under Article 107 (2) of the Constitution, is the same as that taken by a non-authorized person without legitimate delegation, and its defect is serious, but its ordinances and rules concerning the affairs of a local government can be deemed as higher norms, and that the so-called rule is interpreted differently depending on the case where the concept of the above rule is different, such as that both the ordinances and rules of a local government are included, etc., the defect in the process of delegation of the above

(f) The case holding that the notice of the approval plan for the management and disposal plan is not in compliance with the provisions of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, and its illegality is clear, but it cannot be said that the authorization for the management and disposal plan belongs to a serious defect as

G. In a case where an administrative disposition is taken through a general public notice or public notice, the other party to the disposition is many and unspecified persons, and the effect of the disposition is uniformly applied to many and unspecified persons, and the period for requesting an administrative appeal is calculated by counting the period for requesting an administrative appeal. As such, a person who has an interest in a management and disposition plan becomes aware of the disposition at the expiration of five days after the public notice takes effect, regardless of whether the person was actually aware of the fact that the public notice was made, and accordingly, an administrative appeal against the disposition of the management and disposition plan shall be filed within 60 days after the date of

a.B.(c) Articles 8 and 41 of the Urban Redevelopment Act; Article 58(1)12 of the Enforcement Decree of the Urban Redevelopment Act; Article 5(1) of the Government Organization Act; Article 4 of the Regulations on Delegation and Entrustment of Administrative Authority; Article 5(1)4 of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on Delegation of Administrative Authority (Ordinance No. 2654, Oct. 8, 1990); Article 107(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea; Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act [general administrative disposition], Articles 19, 16, 41(1), 41(4), and 41(5) of the Urban Redevelopment Act; Article 21(1)7 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Urban Redevelopment Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14065, Dec. 31, 1993); Article 18(1)7 of the Administrative Appeals Act

A.B.(c)(d).(b) Supreme Court en banc Decision 94Nu4615 Decided July 11, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 263) (Gong195Ha, 263). Supreme Court Decision 89Nu5287 Decided February 27, 1990 (Gong1970, 789) 89Nu66 Decided July 27, 1990 (Gong1990, 1806) 92Nu31 Decided July 28, 1992 (Gong192, 2575) 92Nu5294 Decided March 9, 193 (Gong193Sang, 1174) 84Nu419329 decided July 23, 1985 (Gong1943, Nov. 194, 194; 193Nu19437, Nov. 24, 1993>

Plaintiff 1 and two others

Plaintiff’s Intervenor 1 and two others, and Plaintiff’s Intervenor’s Intervenor

The head of Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 92Gu13075 delivered on March 30, 1994

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the Plaintiffs and the Intervenors.

The grounds of appeal (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed) are examined as follows.

On the first ground for appeal

1. 원심판결 이유에 의하면 원심은, 도시재개발법 제41조 제1항의 규정에 의한 관리처분계획의 인가 등에 관한 사무는 국가사무로서 서울특별시장에게 위임된 기관위임사무이므로, 서울특별시장은 조례에 의하여 구청장에게 이를 재위임할 수 없는 것이어서 조례상의 재위임규정에 근거하여 한 피고의 이 사건 관리처분계획인가처분은 권한 없는 자에 의한 행위로서 무효라는 원고의 주장에 대하여 도시재개발법에 의한 재개발사업이라 함은 재개발구역 안에서 토지의 합리적이고, 효율적인 고도이용과 도시기능을 회복하기 위하여 위 법이 정하는 바에 의하여 시행하는 건축물 및 그 부지의 정비와 대지의 조성 및 공공시설의 정비에 관한 사업과 이에 부수되는 사업으로서 도심지재개발사업과 주택개량재개발사업으로 구분하여 시행하는 것을 말하는 것으로서(도시재개발법 제2조 제2호), 재개발사업에 관한 계획은 도시계획법에 의한 도시계획에 포함되고(도시계획법 제2조 제1항 제1호 ㈐목, 제6호), 지방자치법에는 도시계획사업의 시행이 지방자치단체의 사무의 하나로 예시되어 있는 점(지방자치법 제9조 제2항 제4호 ㈐목)등에 비추어 볼때, 도시재개발법에 의한 재개발사업의 시행은 지방자치단체의 자치사무에 속한다고 보아야 할 것이고, 한편 도시재개발법 제41조 제1항 본문은 재개발사업의 시행자는 그 법이 정하는 바에 의하여 대지 및 건축시설에 관한 관리처분계획을 정하여 건설부장관의 인가를 받아야 한다고 규정하고, 도시재개발법 제8조, 같은법시행령 제58조 제1항 제12호는 건설부장관은 “법 제41조의 규정에 의한 관리처분계획의 인가 및 그 변경인가와 의견청취”의 권한을 서울특별시장, 부산직할시장, 도지사(이하 시·도지사라고 한다)에게 위임한다고 규정하며, 지방자치법(1994.12.20. 법률 제4789호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제95조 제1항은 지방자치단체의 장은 조례가 정하는 바에 의하여 그 권한에 속하는 사무의 일부를 보조기관, 소속 행정기관 또는 하부행정기관에 위임할 수 있다고 규정하고 있고, 서울특별시장은 이에 따라 서울특별시행정권한위임조례(1990.10.8. 조례 제2654호로 개정) 제5조 제1항 별표의 규정에 의하여 관리처분계획의 인가등 권한을 구청장에게 재위임하였으므로, 이 사건 처분은 피고가 위와 같이 적법하게 재위임받은 권한의 범위 내에서 한 것으로서 정당하다고 판단하였다.

2. A. According to Article 8 of the Urban Redevelopment Act and Article 58(1)12 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the authority to dispose of a management and disposal plan under Article 41 of the Urban Redevelopment Act, which belongs to the authority of the Minister of Construction and Transportation, is only delegated to the Mayor/Do governor and the head of the Si/Gun (hereinafter referred to as the "head of the Gu, etc.") but there is no reasonable provision that can re-endorse it to the head of the Gu, the Mayor/Do governor, and the head of the Si/Gun (hereinafter referred to as the "head of the Gu, etc.") under Article 5(1) of the Government Organization Act and Article 4 of the Regulations on Delegation and Entrustment of Administrative Authority based thereon (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 10955, Dec. 11, 1982). Thus, the Mayor/Do governor can re-endorse the authority to dispose of it to the head of the Gu, etc. delegated under the general provisions on the re-election (see Supreme Court Decisions 89Nu5287, Jul. 27, 1990, 294).

In this case, the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City did not re-entrust the above disposition authority which was delegated by the Minister of Construction and Transportation pursuant to Article 4 of the Regulations on Delegation and Entrustment of Administrative Authority to the head of the Gu, but re-entrust it to the head of the Gu pursuant to Article 5 (1) (Attached Table) of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on Delegation of Administrative Authority (amended by Ordinance No. 2654 of October 8, 190). The part concerning the re-election of the above disposition authority among the above Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on Delegation of Administrative Authority is limited to the state affairs (agency delegated affairs) which

B. However, in order for a defective administrative disposition to be null and void as a matter of course, it must be objectively obvious that the defect has violated an important part of the law, and objectively obvious, and in judging whether the defect is significant and obvious, the purpose, meaning, function, etc. of the law should be examined from a teleological perspective, and at the same time, reasonable consideration should be made on the characteristics of the specific case itself (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 84Nu419, Jul. 23, 1985; 93Nu1432, Dec. 7, 1993; 93Nu1432, Dec. 7, 1993). Thus, the disposition in this case was conducted based on the provisions of the null and void Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on Delegation of Administrative Authority as seen earlier. Thus, the disposition in this case is the same as that conducted by a person without legitimate authority. However, it can be deemed that the municipal ordinances and municipal rules concerning the affairs of local governments are superior, and it cannot be viewed that the defect in the procedure of this case is objectively null and void.

3. Therefore, since the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor's authority of disposition, which was delegated by the Minister of Construction and Transportation, belongs to the autonomous affairs of local governments, the Urban Redevelopment Act and its Enforcement Decree shall be deemed to have no authority to re-endorse the above disposition authority under the provisions of Article 95 of the Local Autonomy Act, but it shall be deemed that the head of Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor re-endorses the above disposition authority to the head of the Gu under the provisions of Article 95 of the above Local Autonomy Act. Thus, the disposition of this case is justified because the defendant is within the scope of the lawfully re-entrusted authority as mentioned above. However, it is not obvious that the disposition of this case, which was issued based on the provisions of the above re-delegation, cannot be deemed to have been serious in its defect. Thus, it shall not be deemed to have been null and void as it is justifiable in rejecting the plaintiff's assertion that the disposition of this case is null and void (see the en banc Decision 94Nu4615 delivered on July 11,

In the end, there is no reason to discuss.

With respect to the second and third points

1. Article 41 (1) and (4) of the Urban Redevelopment Act provides that "the implementer of a redevelopment project shall establish a management and disposal plan concerning the site and constructed facilities and obtain approval from the Minister of Construction and Transportation." The management and disposal plan provides that "the name of the redevelopment project; the address and name of the purchaser; the estimated price of the site or constructed facilities to be sold to each purchaser; the details and prices of the previous land and constructed facilities; 4. The details of rights other than ownership of the previous land and buildings; 5. Other matters prescribed by the Presidential Decree"; Article 16 (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that the contents of the approval of the redevelopment project shall be publicly notified in the Official Gazette; Article 21 (1) of the same Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 14065 of Dec. 31, 1993) shall apply mutatis mutandis to the approval of the redevelopment project; Article 21 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that the Minister of Construction and Transportation shall provide that the public notification of the management plan shall be made in the Official Gazette.

2. According to the records, when the defendant approves the management and disposal plan of this case and publicly announces it in the Official Gazette, the defendant stated the name of the redevelopment project of 1.2, project implementation district of 3. project implementation district, location of the main office of 4.5, execution period of 6. Execution period, address and name of the implementer, etc. of 7.7." Finally, the "8.................." the above management and disposal plan of this case is not in compliance with the provisions of the related Acts and subordinate statutes, and it is not illegal, but the above public notice of the management and disposal plan of this case can be seen that the public notice of the fact that the execution plan of this case was approved by the authorities, which was known to the interested parties such as the plaintiff, etc., while undergoing the procedure of public inspection and the procedure of this case, the public notice of the management and disposal plan of this case can be seen to be significant as the role of the public notice of this case's execution plan of this case, and its contents cannot be easily determined in the whole or 70.

3. The judgment of the court below is somewhat inappropriate, but it is just in its conclusion that the above defects in the notice of the management and disposal plan do not reach the degree that the disposition in this case is null and void as a matter of course, and there is no error of law such as misapprehension of legal principles.

There is no reason for this issue.

Concerning Nos. 4, 5, and 6

According to the facts duly confirmed by the court below, the current Zone 1 Housing Improvement Redevelopment Cooperatives (hereinafter referred to as the "Union") prepared the first management and disposal plan around April 1990 and entered into the procedure of public inspection for application for authorization from May 4, 1990. However, the defendant, immediately, failed to implement the defendant's order and suspended public inspection for the reason that the above management and disposal plan was null and void. Accordingly, the union prepared the second management and disposal plan and issued a public inspection for it from January 11, 191 to February 10 of the same year, and the plaintiffs raised an objection during that period. The union filed an objection against the defendant on February 13, 1991. The defendant requested a partial review and supplementation of the contents of the plan and approved it on August 24, 1991.

If the facts are as above, the association prepared the third management and disposal plan and applied for the authorization thereof, even if there were errors in failing to go through the public inspection procedure under the provisions of related Acts and subordinate statutes, such illegality cannot be deemed as a serious defect as long as the authorization of the management and disposal plan of this case is null and void per annum.

The judgment of the court below to the above purport is just, and there is no error of law such as misconception of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, or omission of judgment due to violation of the rules of evidence such as the theory

There is no reason for this issue.

With respect to the 10 points of land 7

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, where an administrative disposition is taken through a general public notice or public notice, the parties to the disposition are unspecified persons, and the effect of the disposition is uniformly applied to many unspecified persons, and the period for filing an administrative appeal is calculated by deeming that the parties to the disposition were aware of such administrative disposition on the date of the public notice or public notice. Thus, regardless of whether a person who has an interest in the management and disposition plan actually knew of the fact that the public notice was made, the person was aware of the disposition in this case at the expiration of five days after the public notice became effective, and therefore, on the premise that an administrative appeal against the disposition in this case should be filed within sixty days after the day, the public notice of the management and disposition in this case was made on September 2, 191, and it can be known that the plaintiffs' filing an administrative appeal was made on February 20, 192. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' filing an administrative appeal is unlawful since the lawsuit in this case was not made through legitimate procedure, and thus, the court below's judgment is unlawful by misapprehending the legal principles or ex officio.

There is no reason for this issue.

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

Chief Justice Yoon-hee (Presiding Justice) (Presiding Justice), Kim Jong-soo, Justice Kim Jong-ho, Justice Kim Jong-ho, Justice Park Jong-ho, and Justice Lee Jae-hee-hee, Justice Lee Jong-hee, Justice Lee Jae-hee, Justice Lee Jong-hee, and Justice Lee Jae-hee