(a) Defects in the announcement of the urban planning decision without indicating the parcel number, area, etc. of the land to be included in the urban planning zone or omitting the entry "ri", and whether the defect is asserted at the stage of the adjudication of expropriation (negative);

(b) Validity of a cadastral approval and publication which omits drawings;

A. It cannot be deemed that there is a defect in the public announcement of the urban planning decision because of the absence of the parcel number or lot number area of the land to be included in the urban planning zone, and the defect in which the entry of the “ri” was omitted in the public announcement cannot be deemed as a significant and obvious defect to the extent that the public announcement itself is null and void, and even if such defect is found to be a cause for revocation, it should have been disputed at the stage of the urban planning decision, which is the preceding disposition, and it cannot be asserted by the lack of dispute over the disposition at the stage of the expropriation decision, which is subsequent to the lapse of the period of the lawsuit.

B. When the Do governor makes a public notice of cadastral approval in accordance with the urban planning decision, the illegality omitted of the approved drawings is a procedural defect, setting aside that there is a cause for revocation of the public notice, it cannot be deemed that such defect is a grave and obvious defect as it should be deemed that the public notice is void automatically.

(a)Paragraph 4 of Article 12 of the Urban Planning Act, Section 8 of Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Section 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Section 4 of Article 13 of the Urban Planning Act;

Supreme Court Decision 87Nu395 Decided September 8, 1987

Jinju C. P. S. T. T. P. and one other

Attorney Choi Byung-hoon et al., Counsel for the Central Land Tribunal

Seoul High Court Decision 86Gu780 delivered on November 13, 1987

Supreme Court Decision 87Nu1141 Delivered on December 27, 1988

Seoul High Court Decision 89Gu758 delivered on April 12, 1989

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Judgment on the ground of appeal No. 1 by the plaintiffs

According to Article 12(4) of the Urban Planning Act and Article 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), when the Minister of Construction and Transportation determines an urban planning under the provisions of Article 12(1) of the Act, he shall publish in the Official Gazette the matters determined by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation such as the area, district or district, or the urban planning facilities, location, area, size, or size, and other matters prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation, and shall send the determined urban planning drawings to the Mayor or the head of the Si/Gun for public inspection. In full view of the provisions of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the determination of urban planning takes effect by notifying the Minister of Construction and Transportation of the determination of urban planning, and the Minister shall inform the relevant administrative agency and the general public of the general and abstract matters such as the location and size of the determined urban planning by notifying the head of the Si/Gun/Gu of the determined urban planning drawings and make them available for public inspection. The purport of Article 12(4) and Article 8 of the Act is construed as above.

The court below found that the Minister of Construction and Transportation made a decision on urban planning (school facilities) with respect to the land of this case and the land of 2,769,081 square meters in total, including 554 square meters around the land of this case and the land of this case owned by the plaintiffs, including ○○○○, ○○, △△△△, which is one of the plaintiffs and its surrounding areas, and that the public notice was made on April 22, 1982 under the Official Gazette No. 147, the land within the urban planning zone was "Yin-gun, ○, ○, and 53 lots," and it did not indicate the lot number or lot number size of the land to be included in the urban planning zone and it cannot be deemed that there was a defect in the public notice of urban planning. However, the court below's determination that the above defect was a grave and obvious defect to the extent that the public notice itself is null and void, and it cannot be viewed that there was a defect in this case's decision that it had been a legitimate ground for revocation.

2. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 2

According to Article 13 of the Act and Article 9 (4) of the Decree, when the head of Si/Gun determines and publicly notifies the urban planning under the provisions of Article 12 (4) of the Act, he shall apply to the Minister of Construction and Transportation for the approval of the topographical map by clarifying the matters concerning the urban planning on the topographical map indicating the land within the urban planning zone concerned as prescribed by the Presidential Decree. In a case where the Minister of Construction and Transportation deems that there is no error by comparing the topographical map with the determined urban planning, he shall approve the topographical map. In a case where the Minister of Construction and Transportation approves the topographical map, he shall, without delay, publish the matters as prescribed in the subparagraphs of Article 8 of the Decree and the approved drawings in the Official Gazette by applying mutatis mutandis Article 12 (4) of the Act, and send the notified contents to the head of Si/Gun and make them available for public inspection. According to the evidence No. 4 of the court below (which is the same as the evidence No. 8-1, 2).

However, in light of the purport of Article 12(4) of the Act and the purport of Article 8 of the Decree, Article 13(4) of this Act, which provides that the contents of the approval of the drawing and the drawings approved by applying mutatis mutandis the provisions of Article 12(4) of this Act shall be sent to the head of the Si/Gun for public perusal, and the notified drawings shall be sent to the public, and as seen earlier, the illegality omitted from the approved drawings in the public notice of the cadastral approval pursuant to the urban planning decision of this case shall be deemed procedural defects, and it shall not be deemed as a grave and obvious defect as long as the public notice of the cadastral approval is deemed to be null and void automatically. Thus, the judgment of the court below rejected the plaintiffs' claim that the decision of the urban planning of this case was null and void automatically due to the above defect, and the conclusion is somewhat insufficient, but the conclusion cannot be deemed to be justifiable, and therefore the discussion on this point shall not be accepted.

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

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)