Whether the designation of the land rearrangement association for which the implementation of the urban district planning project has been authorized by the Minister of Home Affairs pursuant to Article 3 (2) of the old Joseon City Planning Ordinance is an administrative disposition.

The land zone rearrangement cooperative, which has been authorized to implement the urban district planning project by the Minister of Home Affairs pursuant to Article 3 (2) of the Decree on the Construction and Market Price Planning prior to the implementation of the Urban Planning Act, has the nature of the quasi-administrative agency within the scope of his/her business authority, so the designation of the land reserved by the cooperative

Articles 3(2) and 47 of the Decree on the Market Price Planning of Structure and Part II of the Urban Planning Act

Edification

Daegu City/Do et al.

Daegu High Court Decision 63Gu40 delivered on June 23, 1964

Of the original judgment, the part on the incineration of the Plaintiff’s land subdivision rearrangement association in Daegu-si is reversed, and that part is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

The plaintiff's remaining appeals are dismissed.

Of the costs of appeal, the part arising between the plaintiff and the defendant Daegu market shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The defendant Daegu-si District Association No. 5 (hereinafter referred to as the defendant reorganization association) can be seen in light of the statement in No. 4, 1961, which is the execution of a land rearrangement project, which is not an administrative agency authorized to implement the land rearrangement project for Daegu City Urban Planning Project by the Minister of Home Affairs pursuant to Article 3 (2) of the Decree on the 5th Urban Planning of Joseon City. The above association has the authority to collect land substitution or rearrangement project charges, etc. accompanying a road plan for an urban district plan in accordance with the Ordinance on the 5th Urban Planning of Joseon City, which is not a private law authority, and it is forced to detain the other party of the above act within the scope of land rearrangement (in particular, it shall be deemed that the above act belongs to the exercise of power by the governing authority, and the above rearrangement association has the nature of the quasi-administrative authority within the scope of the act that is a public authority, and even if it is not a new one of the parties to the above administrative authorities's land rearrangement project, it can be interpreted that the above land rearrangement project is not legitimate after the execution of the above administrative authority.

Then, as long as it is evident by the above explanation that the designation of the land scheduled for substitution, which was at issue in this case, was an administrative disposition of the defendant reorganization cooperative, and is not an administrative disposition of the defendant Daegu market, the lawsuit against the defendant Daegu market revocation of the administrative disposition against the defendant Daegu market in itself is unlawful, so there is no ground for appeal that the court below made a judgment of retirement against the defendant Daegu market, and that the same defendant can become the defendant of the administrative litigation as the person responsible for the entire urban planning project.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

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