logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 대전지법 2015. 3. 25. 선고 2014구합1606 판결
[대전도안갑천지구친수구역지정고시취소] 항소[각공2015상,351]
Main Issues

Where the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport designated and publicly announced a 2-stage zone as a waterfront pursuant to Article 4 of the Special Act on the Utilization of Waterfronts, and the Public Development Promotion Committee comprised of residents mainly in the 2-stage two districts filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the designation of a waterfronts, the case holding that the Promotion Committee A has no legal interest seeking revocation of the disposition.

Summary of Judgment

In a case where the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport designated and publicly announced a 2-stage zone as a waterfront pursuant to Article 4 of the Special Act on the Utilization of Waterfronts, and the Public Development Promotion Committee comprised of residents mainly residing in the 2-stage two districts filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the designation of a waterfront, the case holding that the promotion committee does not have a legal interest to seek revocation of the disposition, on the grounds that the committee is not subject to new public law restrictions on the construction of buildings and other acts outside the waterfronts, but there is no provision restricting acts outside the waterfronts, even though certain acts, such as construction of buildings, etc. in the waterfronts are restricted pursuant to Articles 4, 10 of the Special Act on the Utilization of Waterfronts, Articles 51 and 54 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act.

[Reference Provisions]

Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Articles 4 and 10(1)3 of the Special Act on the Utilization of Waterfronts, Articles 51 and 54 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act

Plaintiff

The Second-Class Public Development Promotion Committee for Doan New City (Attorney Lee Jae-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Defendant

The Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (Attorney Kim Jong-soo)

Intervenor joining the Defendant

Daejeon Metropolitan City Mayor and one other (Attorney Kim-sik, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Conclusion of Pleadings

February 25, 2015

Text

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the costs incurred by participation.

Purport of claim

On January 23, 2014, the decision to designate the Daejeon Acheon District announced by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport Notice No. 2014-37 on January 23, 201 is revoked.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. As a new development site was needed due to the continuous increase of population in the area of the Seo-gu Daejeon, the detailed development plan for the area of the South and North Western Zone was formulated around July 199.

B. Daejeon Western District was planned to be developed in a successive order by dividing it into the 1, 2, and 3-level zones, and the 1-level zone was launched by public development around 2001 and its name was changed to the Doan New City after completion of the development around December 2012.

A person shall be appointed.

C. The second phase area of the Doan New City is divided into one district in the Doan-dong and two districts in the left-hand side of the Ganwon University, such as the right-hand drawing. On January 23, 2014, the Defendant, on January 23, 2014, designated the Seo-gu Doan-dong, Seo-gu, Daejeon-gu, the second phase area in the Doan-gu, Seopo-dong, Seopo-dong, Seopo-dong, Yusung-dong (hereinafter “instant project area”) as a waterfront pursuant to Article 4 of the Special Act on the Utilization of the Waterfrontan-dong (hereinafter “instant disposition”), and publicly announced as the same day by Article 2014-37 of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport notification

D. The purpose of the Plaintiff is to promote public development for the entire two-stage zone of the Doan New City, which is an organization consisting of the residents mainly of the two-stage zone of the Doan New City.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 3 and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. Defendant’s defense

The Plaintiff asserts that there is a legal interest in seeking the cancellation of the instant disposition, since the Plaintiff did not develop the entire 2-stage zone of the Doan New City by public development method, designating only some of the instant project zone, excluding the 2-stage zone, as a waterfront, is illegal, and most of the residents constituting the Plaintiff reside in the 2-stage zone of the Doan New City and suffered economic damage due to the instant disposition.

In this regard, the defendant must reside in the business area of this case in order to seek the cancellation of the disposition of this case, and it must be proved that there is an infringement of individual, direct, and specific interests due to the disposition of this case. However, even according to the plaintiff's assertion, the plaintiff is only an organization for the residents of the second stage zone of Doan City, Doan City, which is not the business area of this case, and it cannot be deemed that there is any infringement of rights or legal interests due to the disposition of this case. Thus, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful because the plaintiff filed a lawsuit

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act provides that "a revocation lawsuit may be instituted by a person who has a legal interest in seeking the revocation of a disposition, etc., and even if a third party is not the direct counter-party of an administrative disposition, if any legal interest protected by the administrative disposition is infringed by the law, he/she shall be entitled to a decision of the propriety thereof by filing an administrative litigation seeking the revocation of the disposition. However, the legal interest refers to a case where there is individual, direct, and specific interest protected by the laws and regulations of the disposition in question and relevant laws and regulations, and where a general, indirect, and abstract interest of the general public is generated as a result of the protection of public interest, it shall not be deemed that there is a legal interest protected by the law (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 200

2) In light of the above legal principles, the Plaintiff’s organization consisting of residents outside the instant business area is as seen earlier.

When it is deemed that a district unit planning zone has been designated as a public announcement of the designation of a waterfront pursuant to Articles 4 and 10 of the Special Act on the Utilization of Waterfronts, which are the basis of the instant disposition, and Article 51 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, the designation of a district unit planning zone is restricted pursuant to Article 54 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, such as the construction of buildings, within a district unit planning zone, but there is no provision that restricts activities outside a waterfront, and therefore, the Plaintiff comprised of residents outside an area outside the instant project zone does not become subject to new restrictions in public law

In addition, the disposition of this case is merely a de facto benefit, and it cannot be deemed a direct and specific benefit protected by the relevant laws and regulations. Furthermore, even if the disposition of this case loses its effect, the designation of a waterfront on the land owned by a third party included in a waterfront is cancelled, and thus, the two-stage zone in the Doan City is not included in the Doan City.

Therefore, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have a direct and specific interest in seeking revocation of the instant disposition. Thus, the instant lawsuit seeking revocation of the instant disposition is unlawful as it was filed by a person who has no standing to sue.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, we decide to dismiss the lawsuit of this case and decide as per Disposition.

[Attachment] Relevant Statutes: omitted

Judges Kim Byung-sik (Presiding Judge)

arrow