Plaintiff (Law Firm Barun, Attorneys Park Ho-ho et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Gwangju Market (Law Firm Rool, Attorneys Cho Young- Line et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

March 17, 2017

Suwon District Court Decision 2016Guhap60424 Decided August 26, 2016

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance court is revoked. The defendant's disposition of approval for the housing construction project plan under the Notification No. 2014-230 of the Gwangju City, December 17, 2014, and the approval for the modification of the housing construction project plan under the Notification No. 2015-330 of the Gwangju City, December 31, 2015, is confirmed to be invalid.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court’s judgment concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following reasons for the judgment between six and seven (6) of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this court shall accept it in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

D. Even if the Gyeonggi-do Governor and the defendant respectively violated the public announcement procedure prescribed by the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on the Regulation of Land Use in the Gyeonggi-do newsletter and Gwangju City newsletter, even if “the omission of the publication of the topographical map itself” violated the enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on the Regulation of Land Use, insofar as the Governor of Gyeonggi-do and the defendant kept related books, such as topographic drawings, in the Gwangju City Planning and the public perusal them, so long as the Gyeonggi-do Governor and the defendant have made such relevant books such as topographic drawings available for public perusal, the public announcement of such procedural defects itself cannot be deemed as a grave and obvious defect as long as they should be deemed as a rightful invalidation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da7469

2. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed, and the judgment of the court of first instance is justifiable with this conclusion. Accordingly, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Heung-jin (Presiding Justice)