A. The replotting disposition, in violation of the provision that land substitution shall not be made with respect to private land already used as roads, among the Enforcement Rules of the said project enacted by an administrative agency, which received an order to implement a land readjustment project under Article 44(2) of the Joseon City Planning Ordinance, after obtaining authorization of the said project plan, shall be null and void annually

(b) If an administrative disposition files an administrative lawsuit claiming its revocation in the sense that the declaration of invalidation is sought, it is not necessary to satisfy the requirements of the rule of origin.

Land substitution disposition made in violation of the provision that no land substitution shall be made for private land already used as roads among the Enforcement Rules of the same project, which was enacted by an administrative agency that received an order to implement a land readjustment project under Article 44 (2) of the Joseon City Planning Ordinance, after obtaining authorization of the said project plan.

Article 32 of the Land Readjustment Projects Act (former Law Relations), Article 53 of the Land Readjustment Projects Act, Article 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Ethicalism

Gwangju Market

Masung(Seong)

Gwangju High Court Decision 66Gu32 delivered on October 22, 1968

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant's attorney are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance court, the defendant's construction of the above-mentioned land rearrangement project for Gwangju City, which was owned by the plaintiff 1, 22, Gwangju City (number omitted) and the land owned by the defendant 1,000 square meters in Gwangju City, were stated as 173 square meters in common, but it is obvious that the above land was already constructed as a road before the implementation of the urban planning project and the land already constructed as a road will not be excluded from the land substitution. The court below determined that the above-mentioned land rearrangement project was not in violation of the provisions of Article 32, 34 of the Enforcement Rule of the Urban Planning Act, which was not in conformity with the above-mentioned land substitution plan, and there were no errors in the law as stated in the Enforcement Rule of the 19,000 square meters. The court below determined that the above construction of the land was not in violation of the above-mentioned provision of the 19,000 square meters in common, and that there was no significant and obvious error in the construction of the land substitution plan.

The second case is that the Gwangju Market claims revocation in the sense of seeking the declaration of invalidity of a replotting disposition for the case of the main land substitution disposition, so there is no illegality in indicating the defendant as the Gwangju Market, and it is not necessary (in accordance with Article 3 of the Joseon City Planning Decree, an administrative agency shall execute a project for the land substitution plan) so this lawsuit does not constitute an unlawful act, and it cannot be deemed that it is not significantly inappropriate for public welfare because it revoked a disposition of replotting for the case of the land substitution disposition for which the plaintiff's claim was made. Therefore, there is no error in violation of Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act in the original judgment which cited the plaintiff's claim. All arguments are groundless.

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

Judge Han-dong (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court