The principle of the protection of trust in the conduct of administrative agencies is applicable.

Article 4(2) of the Administrative Procedures Act

Supreme Court Decision 2001Du7251 Decided November 9, 2001 (Gong2002Sang, 57) Supreme Court Decision 2001Du10851 Decided July 11, 2003 (Gong2005Ha, 1350) Supreme Court Decision 2004Du13592 Decided February 24, 2006 (Gong2006Sang, 521)

Seoju Tourism Development Co., Ltd. (Attorney Yellow-il, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor (Seoul High Law Firm, Attorneys Kim Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2004Nu12140 decided May 26, 2005

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. In general in administrative legal relations, in order to apply the principle of protection of trust to an act of an administrative agency, first, an administrative agency should name a public opinion that is the subject of trust to an individual; second, with respect to the trust of an administrative agency's opinion that is justifiable and trusted, there should be no cause attributable to the individual; third, an administrative agency should have conducted any act in violation of the above opinion list; fourth, an administrative agency should have made a disposition contrary to the above opinion list so that the interests of an individual who trusted the opinion list may be infringed; last, when taking an administrative disposition in accordance with the above opinion list, it should not be likely to seriously undermine the public interest or legitimate interests of a third party (see Supreme Court Decisions 98Du7343, Nov. 13, 1998; 200Du8684, Sept. 28, 2001, etc.).

The court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its reasoning based on the adopted evidence, and determined that the plaintiff's response on November 13, 2002 to the effect that the Special Act on the Assistance to Tourist Lodging Facilities (hereinafter "the Special Act") can apply the special law even after the expiration of the term of validity on December 31, 2002 was made to the defendant, so it cannot be viewed as a public opinion statement of the plaintiff, and even if the defendant's public official in charge was anticipated to have the above reply to the plaintiff before the above reply, even if the above reply was somewhat late, it is nothing more than a public opinion statement of the public official in charge before the above reply. Further, even if the plaintiff applied for the approval of the business plan on November 4, 2002 as originally planned, it cannot be viewed as a violation of the principle of special law since the special law had not been applied for the extension of the term of validity on the ground that the plaintiff's prior to the above reply did not violate the principle of special law.

In light of the above legal principles and records, we affirm the judgment below's finding of facts and judgment as just, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of legal principles as to the principle of protection of trust, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-dam (Presiding Justice)