Whether rejection of an application for cancellation of a park building plan, which is an urban planning facility, is an administrative disposition subject to appeal (negative)

In order to be an administrative disposition against a citizen's rejection of a request for a park development plan, the citizen must have the right to demand the administrative act according to the law or sound reasoning. However, there is no provision under the Urban Planning Act that a resident may file an application for a change in the urban planning and its modification, and in the administrative plan requiring long-termness and comprehensiveness like the urban planning, there is a change in circumstances that make it difficult for the local residents to recognize the right to request a change in the plan on the ground that there is a change in circumstances after the plan has become final and conclusive, the refusal of a request for cancellation of a park development plan

Articles 2, 4, and 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 12(1) of the Urban Planning Act

Supreme Court Decision 84Nu227 delivered on October 23, 1984, 87Nu438 delivered on February 23, 1988

Plaintiff 1 and one other, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Attorney Lee Dong-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant

Busan High Court Decision 88Gu636 delivered on December 23, 1988

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the Plaintiffs’ grounds of appeal.

1. The rejection disposition against a citizen's application is an administrative disposition subject to an appeal litigation. However, in order for the administrative agency to become an administrative disposition, the citizen's right to demand the administrative action following the application is required under the laws and regulations that allow the citizen to do so. If the administrative agency refuses to accept the application without following such right, it does not affect the applicant's right or legal interest (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 84Nu227, Oct. 23, 1984; 87Nu438, Feb. 23, 1988).

In this case, according to Article 12 (1) of the Urban Planning Act and Article 12 (1) of the Urban Planning Act, the Minister of Construction and Transportation provides that urban planning and its alteration shall be determined ex officio or by the application of the head of Si/Gun, who is the urban planning developer under the provisions of Article 11 of the same Act, and there is no provision on which residents can file an application for urban planning and modification thereof under the Urban Planning Act, and there is no change in circumstances in the administrative plan that requires long-termness and integration, such as urban planning, and there is no change in circumstances after the plan becomes final and conclusive so that the residents' right to file an application for cancellation of the park development plan, which is the urban planning facility in this case, cannot

The issue is that the defendant's notice of the city planning of this case is neglected for more than 20 years, and the plaintiffs' property rights are restricted. Thus, the provisions of the Urban Planning Act, or the judgment of the court below on October 23, 1984, which violated the Constitution, but it is merely an independent opinion and cannot be accepted.

2. Therefore, the judgment of the court below to the same effect as a party member is just and there is no error of law as otherwise alleged in the grounds for appeal. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)