The public notice of tax items under Article 12 of the Urban Planning Act is an administrative disposition.

Article 12 of the former Urban Planning Act (Act No. 983, Jan. 20, 200) is an administrative disposition.

Article 12 of the Urban Planning Act

Plaintiff

Busan City Mayor

Daegu High Court Decision 69Gu43 delivered on December 30, 1970

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant-appellant's ground of appeal is examined.

Point 1

The public notice of tax items in accordance with Article 12 of the Urban Planning Act is to specify the land and goods to be expropriated in accordance with the implementation plan of the urban planning project approved and publicly announced under Articles 6 and 7 of the same Act, and is an act that constitutes the basis of the process of executing the procedure of accepting them under the same Act and the Land Expropriation Act, and unless such a disposition is taken, the owner is not entitled to make a decision on expropriation. Therefore, the owner is subject to the change in his rights and duties in this disposition, and the public notice of tax items is subject to the restriction on the exercise of ownership of the object pursuant to Article 13 of the Urban Planning Act and Article 21 and Article 22 of the Land Expropriation Act, and it is just and opposing to the purport that the public notice of tax items is an administrative disposition. It

Point 2, 3

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, in order to build the Busan Jin market, which is a business executor, the Busan Jin market, completed the construction of the building on the land other than the plaintiff's land by changing the original design and completing the allocation of the store promptly, and even on the long run, the court below recognized that the land owned by the plaintiff is not necessary for the establishment of the above market, and found that the tax notice disposition of this case, which was based on the premise that the land owned by the plaintiff is necessary for the establishment of the above market, was illegal as a result of the review by the records, and therefore, it is not recognized that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles of the tax notice of the above measure, or by failing to exhaust all deliberation, and therefore, it is not justified to discuss the theory of this point

Therefore, according to the consistent opinion of the participating judges, it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 14 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Articles 400, 95, and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

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