Gangnam-gu and 345 others (Attorneys Kim Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor (Law Firm Aju, Attorneys Kim Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

may 22, 2006

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2005Guhap16819 decided Oct. 27, 2005

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are jointly and severally borne by the Plaintiffs.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's designation on November 26, 2003 as the executor of the Gangnam Urban Development Project on November 26, 2003 as E. E. shall confirm that the disposition is invalid.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasons why a member should explain this case are as follows, except for the addition of the following judgments with respect to the newly asserted matters in the court of the first instance, and therefore, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. Based on Article 20(1) of the Urban Development Act and Article 32(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the Plaintiffs asserted that the procedure and method of implementation of an urban development project may be determined first by the implementer of the urban development project and then by the designated implementer after the designation of the implementer. However, on July 9, 2003, the Defendant announced the designation of the urban development zone in violation of such procedure and method as public inspection and public announcement for the designation of the implementer. On October 22, 200 of the same year, the Defendant determined the method of expropriation and use while deliberating on the designation of the Gangwon Urban Development Zone by the Committee for Urban Planning under the Defendant’s Urban Planning established the method of expropriation and use. On November 10 of the same year, the method of implementation should be low while the designation of the Gangwon Urban Development Zone and the approval of the development plan should be approved and approved.

B. In light of the fact that Article 5(1) of the Urban Development Act provides that an urban development project operator may determine the urban development method, it is not always possible to interpret that an urban development project operator should first be selected. From the perspective of the Urban Development Act and its full text, a thorough examination of the Urban Development Act and its Enforcement Decree is not possible to find out any provision regarding the procedure and method to the effect that a designated project operator should first designate a project operator and then determine the method of implementation of an urban development project. In addition, Article 3(1) of the Urban Development Act provides that "a Si/Do Governor may designate an urban development zone" and Article 4(1) of the Urban Development Act provides that "a person authorized to designate an urban development zone shall establish an urban development project plan when he/she intends to designate an urban development zone." In light of the fact that Article 5(1) provides matters concerning "the method of implementation of an urban development project" as included in the development plan, it is legitimate for the defendant to determine the method of implementation

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and all appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment List omitted]

Judges Lee Sung-ho (Presiding Judge)