[1] The scope of binding force of the ruling

[2] The case holding that a new disposition does not conflict with the binding force of the ruling on the previous disposition on the ground that the ground for the new disposition and the previous disposition are illegal, and there is no identity in factual relations with the basic facts

[1] The binding force of the ruling shall be limited to the judgment on the specific grounds of illegality such as the order of the ruling and the recognition and judgment on the requisite facts that form the premise thereof, i.e., the judgment on the previous disposition, even if the previous disposition was revoked by the ruling, it does not conflict with the binding force of the ruling to conduct the previous disposition for reasons different from the previous disposition. Here, whether it is the same reason or not should be determined on the basis of whether it is an unlawful reason as to the previous disposition, and on the basis of whether it is identical in

[2] The case holding that a new disposition does not conflict with the binding force of the ruling on the previous disposition on the ground that the ground for the new disposition and the previous disposition are illegal, and there is no identity in factual relations with the basic facts

[1] Article 37 of the Administrative Appeals Act / [2] Article 37 of the Administrative Appeals Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 99Du5238 delivered on February 27, 1998 (Gong1998Sang, 919) Supreme Court Decision 9Du5238 delivered on March 23, 2001 (Gong2001Sang, 101Sang, 1012), Supreme Court Decision 99Du3324 delivered on September 14, 2001 (Gong2001Ha, 2273), Supreme Court Decision 2002Du3201 Delivered on April 25, 2003 (Gong2003Sang, 1337)

Han River Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Rate, Attorneys Yoon Yong-pop et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Military Industry Market (Attorney Examination of Subagent of Lawsuit)

Gwangju High Court Decision 2001Nu693 delivered on June 26, 2003

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. As to the ground of appeal concerning the violation of the rules of evidence, violation of the rules of evidence, and the approach road

A. Examining the record of Article 36(1) and (4) of the former Housing Construction Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 6916, May 29, 2003; hereinafter “the Housing Construction Promotion Act”) and Article 35(1) and (4) [Attachment 6] of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act No. 18146, Nov. 29, 2003); Article 25(1) of the former Regulations on Standards, etc. of Housing Construction (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17137, Feb. 24, 2001); the Defendant’s duty to install the scheduled access road under the housing construction plan of this case to secure the Plaintiff’s direct access road to the Corporation for the purpose of securing the Plaintiff’s right of way prior to the implementation of the said plan is expected to cause large traffic accidents, and it is anticipated that the Defendant’s direct access road to the Corporation will not be opened to the Corporation prior to the implementation of the project plan of this case.

Although the reasoning of the judgment of the court below is somewhat unclear, the conclusion that the disposition of this case is legitimate is justified, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, violation of the rules of evidence, or misapprehension of the legal principles as to access roads under the Housing Construction Promotion Act.

2. As to the grounds of appeal, such as violation of the rules of evidence, violation of the principle of proportionality, and misapprehension of the legal principles on binding force of adjudication

The binding force of the ruling shall only extend to the judgment on specific grounds such as the order of the ruling and the recognition and judgment of facts constituting the premise thereof (see Supreme Court Decisions 96Nu13972, Feb. 27, 1998; 9Du5238, Mar. 23, 2001; 9Du5238, Apr. 25, 2003, etc.). Even if the previous disposition was revoked by the ruling, it does not conflict with the binding force of rendering the previous disposition for reasons different from the previous disposition (see Supreme Court Decision 99Du3324, Sept. 14, 2001). Here, whether it is the same reason or not shall be determined based on whether it is a reason that is identical to the basic facts of the previous disposition determined by the ruling as unlawful (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Du3201, Apr. 25, 2003).

According to the records, the reason for the previous disposition of this case is likely to harm the surrounding environment, climate, aesthetic view, etc., and the ruling of this case does not violate the public notice and the Gun City Construction Ordinance of July 5, 1994 on which the project of this case should maintain the environment, scenic view, etc., and does not go against the public interest that should maintain the environment, scenic view, aesthetic view, etc., and the previous disposition of this case goes against the principle of proportionality and constitutes abuse of discretionary power. Thus, the binding force of the ruling of the previous disposition of this case is limited to the same reason as determined in the main disposition of this case, since the previous disposition of this case is in violation of the principle of proportionality and abuse of discretionary power. In addition, the reason for the previous disposition of this case is the reason for the disposition of this case's failure to comply with the request for supplementation which is made to secure the alternative access road due to unreasonable access plan under the conditions of the Corporation and the traffic condition. Thus, it cannot be said that the previous disposition of this case is not identical with the facts of the previous disposition of this case.

Nevertheless, the court below erred in finding the disposition of this case as one of the grounds for the disposition of this case even if the "public interest needs" to prevent damage to the natural environment, etc. and to maintain a healthy and cultural living environment, but it is reasonable to conclude that the disposition of this case is legitimate on the premise that the disposition of this case does not conflict with the binding force of the previous decision on the previous disposition. There is no violation of the rules of evidence, violation of the principle of proportionality and equity, or misapprehension of legal principles as to the binding force of the decision, as alleged in

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice)