[1] Requirements for applying the principle of the protection of trust to an act of an administrative agency, and the standard for determining whether one of the above requirements has a statement of public opinion of an administrative agency

[2] The case holding that it is difficult to deem that the public opinion of the head of the above local government was given even after the expiration of the term of validity of the Special Act on the Assistance to Tourist Accommodation, etc. on the ground that a public official in charge of the reply to the head of the local government of the Ministry of Culture and Tourism was informed of the fact that

[1] Article 4 (2) of the Administrative Procedures Act / [2] Article 4 (2) of the Administrative Procedures Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 96Nu18380 delivered on September 12, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 3145) Supreme Court Decision 2000Du8684 Delivered on September 28, 2001 (Gong2001Ha, 2371) Supreme Court Decision 2001Du7251 Delivered on November 9, 2001 (Gong2002Sang, 57), Supreme Court Decision 2001Du10851 Delivered on July 11, 2003, Supreme Court Decision 2005Du3165 Delivered on July 8, 2005 (Gong2005Ha, 1350), Supreme Court Decision 204Du135260 delivered on February 24, 2006)

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and four others (Attorney Han-won, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor (Law Firm Seo General Law Office, Attorneys Cho Jong-hee et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2004Nu1874 delivered on July 13, 2005

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. The court below held that Article 3 (1) of the Addenda of the Special Act on the Assistance, etc. to Tourist Accommodation (hereinafter "the Special Act") is a provision based on the premise that the approval of the business plan or the approval of the modification thereof was obtained until December 31, 2002, which is the effective term of the special law, and the special law does not apply to the case where the approval of the business plan was filed but the approval was not obtained within the effective term. In light of the relevant legal principles, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no violation of the interpretation of Article 3 of Addenda of the Special Act as argued in the Grounds for Appeal.

2. In general in administrative legal relations, in order to apply the principle of the protection of trust to an administrative agency's act, first, the administrative agency's public opinion that is the object of trust to an individual should be the name of the individual; second, the administrative agency's public opinion that is the object of trust to the individual should be justified and there should be no reason attributable to the individual; third, the administrative agency should have conducted any act against the above opinion name; fourth, the administrative agency's disposition that is contrary to the above opinion name should cause an infringement on the individual's interest that is trusted; last, when taking an administrative disposition in accordance with the above opinion name, it should not be likely to seriously harm the public interest or legitimate interests of a third party (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 200Du8684, Sept. 28, 200; 2004Du13592, Feb. 24, 2006).

After compiling the adopted evidence, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its decision. ① When applying for the approval of tourist hotel business plan by December 31, 2002, which is the effective period of the special law, the Minister of Culture and Tourism made the defendant on November 13, 2002 that the special law can be applied even after the effective period expires, so it cannot be viewed as a public opinion statement for the plaintiffs. Further, it cannot be viewed that the defendant's public opinion statement was made merely because the public official in charge of the defendant notified the plaintiffs of the above contents of the reply to the plaintiffs, and it is hard to see that Kim Dong-dong, who is a public official in the procedure prior to applying for the approval of the fixed business plan, notified the plaintiffs of the above contents to the Minister of Culture and Tourism in advance, was made at the time of the application for the approval of the special law because the defendant did not intentionally delay the plaintiffs' request for the approval of the business plan due to the lack of the plaintiffs' simple information or general legal consultation. ② Furthermore, the deadline for processing the plaintiffs' application for approval of the special law can be deemed to be rejected.

Examining the records in light of the above legal principles, we affirm the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below as just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts against the rules of evidence or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the principle of protection of trust and good faith without failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)