Plaintiff (Attorney Han-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Ansan City (Law Firm Doll, Attorneys Lee Man-han, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

August 10, 2011

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On November 30, 2010, the Defendant’s disposition to exclude the Plaintiff from the priority order for the installation of gas stations within a development-restricted zone is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 20, 2010, the Defendant changed the existing public announcement to place gas stations, gas stations, and rest areas within the development-restricted zone in Ansan-si, Ansan-si (hereinafter “instant placement plan”) and issued a public announcement to change the installation plan of gas stations, gas stations, and gas stations (hereinafter “instant placement plan”) within the development-restricted zone to newly place one gas station within the area of 3.7km distance from the north-west side of the water-related industry (n.e., the national highway 42 lines, water source direction), to both villages and the 3.7km (hereinafter “instant road section”).

B. On May 12, 2010, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for a decision on the priority order for the installation of a gas station with the aggregate of 1,500 square meters of three parcels, other than the Magdong, Ansan-gu, Busan-si, to install a gas station in the instant road section in accordance with the instant placement plan (hereinafter “instant application site”).

C. On November 30, 2010, the Defendant rendered a disposition to exclude the Plaintiff from eligibility for priority selection pursuant to Article 4(3) Subparag. 4 of the instant arrangement plan (hereinafter “instant disposition”) in violation of Article 6 Subparag. 6 of the Rules on Connection between Roads and other Roads, etc. to which the instant application is filed to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Road Connection Rules”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) Since several industrial roads are road management agencies in accordance with Article 20(2) of the Road Act, the Ordinance on Connections between the instant application and several industrial roads in Ansan-si pursuant to Article 64(3) of the Road Act (hereinafter “Ordinance on Connections between the Road and other roads in Ansan-si”) shall apply, but the instant disposition is unlawful as it is against the principle of statutory reservation, since the said Ordinance applies the Road Connection Regulations.

(2) In general, the instant disposition that deemed that the instant disposition constituted a prohibited section of the Road Connection Permission even though it does not go against the Ordinance of the City/Do Road Connection Permission or the Rules of the Road Connection Permission, since the permission for the road connecting can be granted even with respect to the portion of the road, and the farming road to be cross-sectioned with the instant application does not fall under the prohibited section of the Road Connection Permission, even though it does not fall under the prohibited section of the Road Connection Permission.

(3) The instant disposition, such as the instant application form, was unlawful against the principle of equality and the principle of self-regulation of administration, which prevents installation of gas stations only for the instant application form under the same conditions, even if there are not less than eight gas stations and charging stations in Ansan-si and Sinsi-si from the development-restricted zone, which were permitted to cross-in and operated with farming roads.

(4) According to the traffic impact assessment as requested by the Plaintiff, even if the entrance route of the instant application site is connected to the course of course, there is no problem in the traffic safety of village residents and users due to the entry. Nevertheless, without any determination as to the traffic safety of the instant application site, the instant disposition on the ground that it is a prohibited section of road connection permission is illegal by abusing and abusing discretion.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) As to the assertion that it goes against the principle of statutory reservation

According to Article 20(2) of the Road Act, higher-tier roads in the jurisdiction of the Special Metropolitan City, Metropolitan City, Special Self-Governing Province, or Si shall be the management authority of the Special Metropolitan City, Metropolitan City, Special Self-Governing Province, or City Mayor. According to Article 64(3) of the Road Act, matters necessary for permission, such as standards and procedures for permission to connect roads with other roads, passages, and other facilities, are prescribed by the Ordinance of the local government to which the management authority of the roads belongs. Thus, inasmuch as multiple industries are the management authority of the upper-tier roads under the jurisdiction of Ansan City, the upper-tier roads under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, the Ordinance on Road Connection should be applied to the matters concerning the connection between the instant application and the

However, according to the evidence No. 1, No. 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings, the instant application site contains several industrial roads at intervals of 1.5m to 2m, and the 5m wide.5m wide. It can be acknowledged that the instant road plan should pass through the instant road for access to the instant application site. Article 4(3)4 of the instant arrangement plan provides that the person who intends to install gas stations shall be excluded from the subject of the priority selection of oil stations, and the instant provision provides that Article 6 subparag. 6 of the Road Regulations should be moved from the instant disposition to the same ground for determination of the road connecting rules to be installed at the time of the instant application, but it cannot be seen as the same ground for the amendment of the Road Regulations to the Act, which was amended by Ordinance No. 282, Sept. 15, 2010; Article 6 subparag. 7 of the Road Regulations to the effect that there were no concerns for the instant amendment to the Road Regulations to be established by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs.

(2) As to the assertion that the section prohibiting road links is not prohibited

Article 6 subparagraph 7 of the Road Connection Rule (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs No. 282, Sept. 15, 2010) and Article 6 subparagraph 6 of the Ordinance on the Road Connection of Ansan-si provides that the section which could cause danger to the traffic of residents may cause danger to the traffic of residents shall be prohibited if it is impossible to move or install the bus stops and side roads, and the convenience facilities for residents are installed.

According to the evidence No. 18-1, No. 2, Eul evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 18-2, Eul evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 2 and the purport of the whole pleadings, around the land for which the application of this case was filed, farmland cultivation, subdivision, landscaping, Korea Gas Corporation and Korea Electric Power Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "Korea Gas Corporation"), half-month Supply Control Office, and Korea Electric Power Corporation in order to enter this area, the land of this case must be used. The average daily visit vehicle of this case is less than 1, the Korea Electric Power Corporation is less than 2.1, and the Korea Gas Corporation and the Korea Gas Corporation are farmland between the Korea Gas Corporation and the Korea Gas Corporation are located after it was impossible to use the land of this case by the method of direct access to the land of this case and the access to the land of this case to the land of this case, which can be seen to be safe, considering the fact that most of the road of this case could not be separated from the road of this case, which could not be used.

(3) As to the assertion that it violates the principle of equality and the principle of self-detention

According to the statement No. 10-9 of evidence No. 10-S., it can be recognized that there are gas stations installed with a road connecting permission by crossing them with farming roads at Ansan-si and Siri-si, but the above gas stations cannot be seen as having been in violation of the principle of traffic impact assessment on the environment, transportation, disasters, etc. of the former Act (wholly amended by Act No. 9037 of March 28, 2008), Article 4 (1) 15 of the Enforcement Decree of the Environmental Impact Assessment Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 21185 of Dec. 24, 2008), Article 2 (1) 12 and 19 of the Enforcement Decree of the Environmental Impact Assessment Act (wholly amended by the Enforcement Decree of the Environmental Impact Assessment Act of the same Act as the Enforcement Decree of the Environmental Impact Assessment Act), since it is not necessary to obtain traffic impact assessment for the installation of gas stations at present, and it cannot be seen as having been in violation of the state of management and operation of gas stations at issue.

(4) As to the assertion that discretionary power has been abused

Although the installation of gas stations, etc. within a development-restricted zone was prohibited in principle, the instant arrangement plan was prepared to determine the priority order for the installation of gas stations, etc. in a mutually beneficial manner, as well as for the reasons as seen in Article 2.c. (2) above, since the instant application site falls under the prohibited section for road connection permission, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant did not make a decision on traffic safety. In light of the circumstances mentioned above, the instant disposition does not constitute an error of deviation or abuse of discretionary authority. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment Omission of Related Acts]

Judges Kim Jong-chul (Presiding Judge)