Whether the approval disposition of an execution plan by the designating authority in a regional development project implemented within the development promotion district is an independent administrative disposition with the nature of the disposition of authority (affirmative)

In light of the contents and purport of Articles 16(2), 17(1), (2), and (3), 18(1) and (3), and 19(1) and (2) of the former Balanced Regional Development and Support for Local Small and Medium Enterprises Act (amended by Act No. 10762, May 30, 201; hereinafter “former Balanced Regional Development Act”), and Article 22 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Balanced Regional Development and Support for Local Small and Medium Enterprises Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21185, Dec. 24, 2008), the approval of the execution plan should be deemed an independent administrative disposition that grants a kind of authority to implement a regional development project under the former Balanced Regional Development Act, not merely a supplementary action against the implementation plan prepared by the executor, but also a kind of independent administrative disposition that accords the operator with the authority to implement the regional development project under the former Balanced Regional Development Act.

Articles 16(2), 17(1), (2), (3), and (4), 18(1) and (3), and 19(1) and (2) of the former Balanced Regional Development and Support for Local Small and Medium Enterprises Act (Amended by Act No. 10762, May 30, 201); Article 22 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Balanced Regional Development and Support for Local Small and Medium Enterprises Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 21185, Dec. 24, 2008)

Plaintiff

1. The term “the term” means “the term” means “the term “the term” means “the term” means “the term.

1. The term “the term “the term” means “the term” means “the term or “the term” means “the term or “the term” means

Gwangju High Court Decision 2010Nu1063 decided January 26, 2012

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant’s Intervenor, and the remainder are assessed against the Defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the former Balanced Regional Development and Support for Local Small and Medium Enterprises Act (amended by Act No. 10762, May 30, 201; hereinafter “former Balanced Development Act”), the head of the competent Si/Gun/Gu shall designate a developer with respect to a regional development project implemented within a development promotion district (excluding a case where the State or a local government directly implements such development project; hereinafter “district development project”) taking into account the details of the project and scale, etc. pursuant to the development plan (Article 16(2)); and the implementer shall prepare an implementation plan as prescribed by the Presidential Decree and obtain approval from the designating authority (Article 17(1)); the former Enforcement Decree of the Balanced Regional Development and Support for Local Small and Medium Enterprises Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21185, Dec. 24, 2008; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the Balanced Regional Development Act”). Article 22 of the former Balanced Development and Support for Local Small and Medium Enterprises Act provides that a project implementer intends to obtain approval of an implementation plan, the relevant documents and drawings shall be submitted.

Meanwhile, according to the former Balanced Regional Development Act, when a designating authority intends to approve an implementation plan, it shall undergo prior consultation with the head of the relevant administrative agency (Article 17(2)); when a designating authority approves an implementation plan, it shall be publicly notified as prescribed by Presidential Decree (Article 17(3)); when a designating authority approves an implementation plan and consulted with the head of the relevant administrative agency regarding authorization, permission, etc. of the relevant implementation plan, the relevant authorization, permission, etc. shall be deemed granted; when an implementation plan is publicly notified, it shall be deemed that the relevant authorization, permission, etc. under the relevant Act has been publicly notified (Article 18(1) and (3)). In addition, a district development project implementer may expropriate or use the land, buildings, or articles fixed on the land or rights, mining rights, fishing rights, and water other than ownership thereof (Articles 17(4) and 19(1)); when an implementation plan is publicly notified, it shall be deemed that a project approval under the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects and public announcement thereof (Article 19(2).

In light of the contents and purport of the relevant laws and regulations, the approval of the execution plan by the designating authority in the district development project shall not be merely a supplementary act for the execution plan prepared by the executor, but it shall be deemed an independent administrative disposition with the nature of a kind of permanent disposition that grants the status to carry out the district development project under the Balanced Regional

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant’s instant disposition of this case against the instant golf course development project’s implementation plan is merely a plan for civil and construction for the construction of a golf course, and thus, the Defendant’s disposition of this case constitutes an administrative litigation because it itself has the nature of an administrative disposition, and thus becomes the subject of an administrative litigation, and thus, the instant disposition of this case was merely a supplementary act that completes the legal effect of the implementation plan of the instant golf course development project

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the evidence duly admitted, the above judgment of the court below is deemed to have been based on the legal principles as seen earlier, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors in the misapprehension of the legal nature and effect of the implementation plan and approval, and the legal principles as to the defect and the subject of revocation litigation, etc.

The Supreme Court's decision cited in the grounds of appeal differs from this case, and thus is inappropriate to be invoked in this case.

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 on the bench.

Justices Ko Young-han (Presiding Justice)