2014Guhap4359 City (Abstinence) 2014 Public notice of determination of urban renewal acceleration plans

A person shall be appointed.

The Gangwon-do Governor

April 3, 2015

April 17, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Determination and public notice of urban renewal acceleration plans (Public notice of Gangwon-do No. 2011 - 294) on August 26, 2011 by Defendant

first of all, confirming that a disposition is invalid;

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 8, 2007, the Plaintiff purchased at KRW 84,560,60, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 18, 2007, B miscellaneous land B (hereinafter “instant land”) which was State property (the Ministry of National Defense) on November 8, 2007, at KRW 180,00, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 18, 2007 pursuant to Article 4 of the Special Act on the Promotion of Urban Renewal (hereinafter “Urban Area Readjustment Act”), the Plaintiff filed an application for the designation of an urban renewal acceleration district with the Defendant after undergoing deliberation by the relevant administrative agency pursuant to Article 5 of the same Act, and the Defendant publicly announced the designation of an urban renewal acceleration district as the Gangwon-do Urban Planning Committee on August 29, 2008, after consultation with the head of the relevant administrative agency.

C. The Chuncheon City, upon completing the first public inspection of the plan for promoting the development of the Kancheon City (from August 28, 2009 to September 10 of the same year), the second public inspection (from September 28, 2009 to October 1 of the same year) and the hearing of opinions of the Chuncheon City Council (from October 8, 2010, February 8, 2010), collected opinions from landowners who were raised in the first and second public inspection in order to collect the above opinions requesting a change in the method of project promotion, reflecting this, and thereafter, held a public hearing on March 29, 2010.

D. The instant land owned by the Plaintiff was incorporated into Zone 6 to promote knowledge and was designated as a small park site in Zone 6. On July 6, 2010, pursuant to Article 9 of the Urban Renewal Act, the Chuncheon City filed an application with the Defendant for designation of an urban renewal acceleration district for knowledge and knowledge knowledge and the determination of an urban renewal acceleration plan with the aforementioned content as above.

E. Pursuant to Article 12 of the Urban Renewal Act, the Defendant consulted with the head of the relevant administrative agency and deliberated by the relevant City/Do Urban Planning Committee of Chuncheon City, on August 26, 201, issued a public notice of the Gangwon-do public notice of the promotion plan for urban renewal acceleration districts (hereinafter referred to as the “public notice of this case”) on August 26, 201.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 to 19 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Relevant statutes;

As shown in the attached Form.

3. The plaintiff's assertion

A. Since the land owned by the Plaintiff was designated as a park site in accordance with the determination and public notice of this case and could not be used as a building site, the above determination and public notice constitutes disadvantageous disposition to the Plaintiff. The Defendant did not provide the Plaintiff with any prior notice or an opportunity to present his opinion prior to the above determination and public notice, and the Plaintiff did not have any prior notice or opportunity to present his opinion, thereby in violation of Articles 21, 27, and 38 of the Administrative Procedures Act, and thus, the defect in the notice of this case is significant and apparent.

B. The instant land area is merely 180 meters and cannot function as a park. In light of the fact that only one parcel of land in the case of the land adjacent to the said land is not a park site, the instant public notice and notification, which designated the instant land owned by the Plaintiff as a park site, is a defect that deviates from and abused discretion, and its defect is so serious and apparent that it is invalid.

4. Determination:

In order for an administrative disposition to be deemed null and void as a matter of course, the mere fact that there is an illegality in the disposition is insufficient, and the defect is objectively obvious as serious violation of the important part of the law. In determining the importance of the defect, the purpose, meaning, function, etc. of the law shall be examined from a teleological perspective, and at the same time, reasonable consideration shall be made on the characteristics of the specific case itself. In addition, in a case where an administrative disposition was rendered by applying a certain provision to a certain legal relationship or fact-finding by an administrative agency, even though there is no room for dispute over the interpretation, if the administrative disposition was rendered by applying the above provision, inasmuch as there is no room for dispute over the interpretation, it shall be deemed that the defect is significant and obvious. However, in a case where there is a room for dispute over the interpretation because the legal reasoning that the provision of the law is not applicable to the legal relation or fact-finding is not clearly revealed, even if the administrative disposition was erroneously interpreted by mistake of the fact of the disposition, it cannot be said to be clear (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010

We examine procedural defects asserted by the plaintiff.

Article 3(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act provides that the procedures for dispositions, reports, pre-announcement of legislation, pre-announcement of administration, and administrative guidance (hereinafter referred to as "administrative procedures") shall be governed by the so-called Special Act, except as otherwise expressly provided for in other Acts, by stipulating that the procedures for dispositions, reports, pre-announcement of legislation, pre-announcement of administration, and administrative guidance (hereinafter referred to as "administrative procedures") shall be in accordance with the so-called Special Act.

Meanwhile, according to the Urban Renewal Act, which is the basis of the determination and public notice of this case, the Mayor may file an application with the Do Governor for the designation of the urban renewal acceleration district through the residents' briefing session on the designation of the urban renewal acceleration district, the residents' perusal for at least 14 days, and the procedures for hearing the opinions of the local councils (Article 4 of the Urban Renewal Act), the residents' perusal for the urban renewal acceleration plan for at least 14 days, the hearing of opinions of the local council, and the procedures for holding public hearings

The procedures for holding a briefing session for residents, public perusal of residents, local councils, and public hearings as prescribed by the Urban Renewal Act are all subject to the prior notice of dispositions, hearing opinions, submission of opinions, and hearing in administrative dispositions, and special provisions of administrative procedures for the designation of urban renewal acceleration districts and the determination of urban renewal acceleration plans under the Urban Renewal Act.

However, as seen earlier, prior to the determination and public notice of the instant case, the Chuncheon market had gone through all the procedures such as the residents’ briefing sessions, resident perusal, the local council’s hearing, and the public hearing as prescribed by the Urban Renewal Act. As such, the Defendant did not go through the procedure of individual notice of disposition and submission of opinions in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act before the determination and public notice of the instant case.

Next, the defect in deviation from and abuse of discretionary power alleged by the Plaintiff (a defect that was designated as a park site even if the land in this case is not appropriate as a park site) is unlawful in the administrative agency’s determination as to whether the land in this case is suitable as a park site. Thus, even if the defect alleged by the Plaintiff exists in the determination and public notice of this case, it cannot be deemed as being obvious from a doubt about interpretation and dispute, and thus, it does not constitute grounds for invalidation of administrative

5. Conclusion

Since the public notice of this case cannot be deemed null and void, the plaintiff's assertion is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Masung-young

Judges Domincs

Judge Lee Jin-han

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.