Plaintiff 1 and 57 others (Law Firm Kangsan, Attorneys Kim Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Pakistan Market (Law Firm Barun, Attorneys Kim Jung-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

School Foundation (Law Firm Sejong, Attorneys Shin Young-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

November 4, 2008

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are fully borne by the Plaintiffs, including the costs incurred by the supplementary participation.

The defendant's disposition of approving the implementation of the project against the defendant's Intervenor on March 25, 2008 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

(a) Conclusion of a memorandum of understanding for attracting universities;

On October 11, 2006, the Intervenor entered into a memorandum of understanding that the Intervenor will faithfully perform the construction of an educational and research complex in the camp (CAMP EDDS) and its surrounding areas located in the usfk-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-si-ri-si

(b) Formulation and determination of a comprehensive development plan;

1) Around December 2006, the Defendant submitted to the Governor of the Gyeonggi-do a plan to attract the business of construction of the Giman National University Slock, which was implemented by the Intervenor to the 972m2,292m2 (including the “place of the camp loddrid” and its surrounding areas, which is a returned district; hereinafter “cloddrid”).

2) On January 30, 2007, the Governor of the Gyeonggi-do submitted to the Minister of Government Administration and Home Affairs a comprehensive plan for development of Gyeonggi-do related to the Special Act on Support for Areas, etc. adjacent to Areas Granting to United States Armed Forces in Korea (hereinafter “Special Act on Support”), which includes matters concerning the construction of education and research facilities of the above camping Zone. Pursuant to Article 7 of the Special Act on Support on July 23, 2007 and Article 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the Governor of the Gyeonggi-do held a public hearing to establish a comprehensive plan for development, including education and research facilities

3) On January 15, 2008, the Minister of Government Administration and Home Affairs confirmed a comprehensive development plan following deliberation by the Development Committee composed of the Vice Ministers and the Mayors/Do Governors of relevant ministries and agencies with respect to the above education and research facilities

(c) Public perusal and announcement of opinions such as residents, etc. to formulate an urban management planning;

On the other hand, on January 17, 2007 and February 2, 2007, the Defendant: (a) drafted an “determination of urban management planning (urban planning facilities: research facilities)” with the content of setting up an complex of epha research facilities in the ephan City, the content of which is to change the specific use area of 629 days in the control area and the planned control area from the agricultural and forest area to the control area and the planned control area; (b) made public inspection and announcement for hearing opinions of residents and interested parties in order to formulate an “determination of urban management planning (special-purpose area)” with the content of converting the specific use area of 629 days in the epha City into the control area and the planned control area.

(d) Determination of the urban management planning for altering the specific-use area and installing infrastructure;

1) On January 26, 2007 and February 6, 2007, the Defendant requested consultation on the determination of the above urban management plan to the Gyeonggi-do Governor twice. On March 21, 2007, the Governor of the Gyeonggi-do received a reply from the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry that “The Minister of Agriculture and Forestry consents to the determination of the urban management plan on the condition that the procedures for the ex post facto permission on farmland shall be implemented, etc., among the 629 Japan-si 629 Japan-si.”

2) On April 30, 2007, the Defendant applied for the modification of an urban management plan to change the specific use area to the Gyeonggi-do Governor, reflecting the opinions of the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry, and on May 10, 2007, the Defendant completed supplementation of a plan for prior consultation on the examination of factors influencing disasters, ② higher plan, landscape review, review of urban planning facilities, ③ environmental review report, traffic review report, etc.

(iii)Determination and publication of urban management planning (research facilities) (Notice of the fact-finding, No. 2007-61);

On May 7, 2007, the defendant decided and announced an urban management plan as follows:

○○ Facility Name: Research facility, ○ Location: 629 square meters in Yari-ri, Yari-ri, Yari-ri, and 0: 540,179 square meters in size;

(iv)Determination and announcement of the urban management planning (change of specific use area), (No. 2007-5100 of the Gyeonggi-do Public Notice),

On August 27, 2007, the Governor of the Gyeonggi-do determined and publicly announced an urban management plan to change the agricultural and forest area of 214,717 square meters among the 629 Man-ri Dogri-ri 629 Won to a planned control area for the installation of urban planning facilities (research facilities).

(e) Application for project implementation by the intervenor;

On March 25, 2008, the intervenor filed an application with the Defendant for the approval of the implementation of the project for the project for the project for the development of the camp Edward education and research complex construction project with respect to the size of 844,073 square meters of the camp Edward 629 square meters in Sari-ri-ri, Sari-ri-ri, Sari-ri-ri, and submitted the following “business plan and investment plan” (see evidence 5 B; hereinafter the above project application site is referred to as “instant project site”; 84,073 square meters of the camp Edward area, which is the project application site; hereinafter the above project application site is referred to as “instant project site”; and hereinafter the above application for the approval of the implementation of the project is referred to as “instant application”).

(1) Land category: 00 square meters for each 6th 4th 2th 2th 4th 4th 4th 7th 4th 4th 4th 2th 6th 6th 2th 6th 4th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 600022

1) 16,165 square meters

F. Defendant’s approval for the implementation of the project on March 25, 2008

On March 25, 2008, the Defendant issued a disposition to approve the Intervenor to implement the instant project in the instant project site (hereinafter “instant disposition”). However, the Defendant attached to the written approval for the implementation of the project by dividing into “requirements for approval for the implementation of the project,” “general matters, the implementation details at the time of approval for the ○ Development Plan, the implementation details at the time of approval for the ○ Implementation Plan, the implementation details at the time of approval for the ○ Construction Plan, the implementation details at the time of the ○ Construction Permit, etc.,

G. Public notice of March 25, 2008 to March 26, 2008 (Public notice No. 2008-39)

(4) The Defendant publicly announced the matters concerning the land to be expropriated or used in 208 to 2019:

(h) Public notice of approval for change of the implementation of a project on July 17, 2008 (Public notice No. 2008-82 of the date of dissolution);

1) On May 7, 2007, the Defendant requested the Governor of the Gyeonggi-do to hold consultation on the legal fiction of the decision to change urban planning facilities from research facilities to schools, and on May 29, 2008, the Governor of the Gyeonggi-do sent the Defendant a reply with the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry on the condition that he shall consult with the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry as to the land of approximately 310,000 square meters corresponding to the area of 850,181 square meters of the instant project site, which is located in the area of 50,181 square meters of the instant project site, which is located in the area of 50,000 square meters of the instant project site, on the condition that he/she agrees with the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry (the previous reply was invoked as of March 21

2) On July 17, 2008, the Defendant announced a public announcement of approval for the implementation of a project with the content that urban planning facilities under the approval for the implementation of the project as of March 25, 2008 are changed from the research facilities to the schools, from the area of 540,179 square meters to 850,181 square meters (no content of the alteration of specific use areas).

I. The Plaintiffs owned part of the land incorporated into the instant project site.

(j) Matters concerning authorization and permission on the instant project-related agenda;

The matters of authorization and permission necessary for the implementation of the project in this case are as follows. The matters of authorization and permission which are the authority of the head of other administrative agency or the head of local government who is not the defendant is 1,5,6,12 and 13 of this case.

본문내 포함된 표 ？ 의제대상 처분권자 관련 법령 인·허가사항 1 국토계획법(주 3) 제30조 도시관리계획의 결정 경기도지사 2 국토계획법 제86조 도시계획시설사업의 시행자 지정 피고 3 국토계획법 제88조 실시계획의 인가 피고 4 산지관리법 제14조 산지전용허가 피고 5 농지법 제34조 농지전용허가 농림부장관 6 도로법 제38조 도로점용허가 지방국도관리청장(의정부국도유지사무소) 7 대기환경보전법 제23조 배출시설설치의 허가 또는 신고 피고 수질 및 생태계보전에 관한 법률 제33조 소음·진동규제법 제8조 8 오수·분뇨 및 축산폐수의 처리에 관한 법률 제9조 제2항 오수처리시설의 설치 신고 피고 9 장사등에 관한 법률 제23조 제1항 무연고 분묘 개장의 허가 피고 10 건축법 제4조 건축위원회 심의 피고 11 건축법 제11조 건축허가 피고 12 소방시설 설치유지 및 안전관리에 관한 법률 제7조 제1항 건축허가 등의 동의 파주소방서장 13 소방시설공사사업법 제13조 제1항 소방시설공사의 신고 파주소방서장

Note 3) National Land Planning and Utilization Act

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 9, 10, 11, Eul 1, 3 through 28, 63 through 66, Eul 1 and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Both claims;

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

(i) omission of prior consultation procedures under Article 29(2) of the Special Support Act;

According to Article 29(2) of the Special Support Act, prior consultation is required with the head of the relevant central administrative agency and the head of the local government related to the matters of authorization and permission deemed granted under Article 29(1) of the same Act. However, the defendant did not undergo such prior consultation at the time of the instant disposition.

In particular, since the process of consultation with the Gyeonggi-do Governor related to the determination of urban management planning and the designation of a project implementer has not been gone through, there is a serious and apparent defect in the disposition of this case

4) The illegality of the project implementation approval

The defendant acknowledged that prior permission to occupy and use roads (Article 8 of the Road Act), building permission (Article 7 (1) of the Installation, Maintenance, and Safety Control of Fire-Fighting Systems Act), etc. prior to the disposition of this case had not gone through prior consultation with the head of the relevant administrative agency. However, the defendant's disposition of this case was classified into four stages, such as designation of a project implementer, designation of a planned project area, approval of a development plan, and approval of an implementation plan. The disposition of this case only has the validity of designation of a planned project operator and designation of a planned project area, and subsequent approval of a development plan and implementation plan are planned to be carried out by stages, and thus, it is not illegal even if the above prior consultation was not carried out. However, there is no legal ground to proceed with the procedure, and there is no land expropriation right at the time of approval for the implementation of a project. Thus, it should not be allowed in order to prevent unfair infringement to the rights and interests of the people and secure administrative democracy and administrative trust by rationally adjusting the interests of many interested persons. Thus, the disposition of this case only

(L) Even in a way permitted by the law, it is unlawful to conduct the compensation business by deeming the instant disposition, which only means the designation of a project implementer and the designation of a planned project area, as a public announcement of project approval that occurs.

3) Omission of procedures for hearing residents’ opinions

In accordance with Article 29 of the Special Support Act, since the approval for the implementation of a project is deemed to be a decision on the national land management plan under Article 30 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, it shall be interpreted that it goes through the procedures for hearing the opinions of residents under Article 28 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act at the time of approval for the implementation of a project. In the case of public expropriation, the procedures for hearing the opinions of residents

(iv) omission of the procedures for impact assessment, such as environment;

In rendering the instant disposition, it did not go through the process of environmental impact assessment pursuant to Articles 17 and 28 of the Act on Assessment of Impacts of Works on Environment, Traffic, Disasters, etc. (hereinafter “Environmental Impact Assessment”).

5) Failure in the public interest of the project

① The size of the facility of the instant project is set excessively above the necessary level, and ② the facility to be constructed by the instant project is limited to temporary auxiliary facilities operated for a limited period of time or educational projects, not to be necessarily necessary for education. ③ Buildings, such as sports wave, convention center, and strings, are for the purpose of profit-making business of the project implementer, who is irrelevant to education and study, and the public interest and feasibility of the instant project are lacking. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the instant project falls under the business prescribed by the Special Act on Assistance, which becomes effective as the project approval agenda under

6) A deviation from or abuse of discretionary power

The procedures for collecting opinions from residents, environmental impact assessment procedures, and consultation procedures with the head of the relevant administrative agency and the head of the local government were not followed, and thus, the discretion was abused and abused because of the lack of balancing between public and private interests.

B. The defendant and the intervenor's assertion

1) As to prior consultation with the relevant agency:

A) The requirements for constructive authorization and permission under Article 29(1) of the Special Support Act are not necessarily required to be met prior to the approval for the implementation of a project, but also deemed effective after the approval. Therefore, prior consultation for the legal fiction of the determination of an urban management plan as well as prior consultation for the legal fiction of other matters of authorization and permission need not be required.

B) Even if a prior consultation procedure is required for legal fiction of authorized and permitted matters, the meaning of “prior consultation” under Article 29(2) of the Special Support Act refers to a prior consultation to the extent that the project implementer confirms the matters that the project implementer should meet as the requirements for each authorization and permission in the subsequent process of the implementation of the project. The Defendant fulfilled all of the prior consultation procedures.

Even if “pre-consultation” under Article 29(2) of the Special Support Act refers to obtaining a de facto agreement or prior consent from the head of another administrative agency and the head of a local government, such prior consultation is merely an element for obtaining legal fiction of matters authorized and permitted, and cannot be deemed an effective requirement of the instant disposition itself. Thus, even if such prior consultation did not take place, it does not take effect, and the instant disposition is not unlawful.

(In particular, prior consultation with the Governor of the Gyeonggi-do, which is necessary for the legal fiction of the determination of the urban management planning as pointed out by the plaintiffs, shall not be required before the disposition of this case, but shall be sufficient at an appropriate stage after the

C) If the instant disposition ought to undergo a prior consultation for at least the legal fiction of determination of an urban management plan, the Defendant had completed a prior consultation procedure for the legal fiction of determination of an urban management plan prior to the instant disposition.

Even if it is not recognized that the above prior consultation procedure had been completed, the defendant completed prior consultation with the Gyeonggi-do Governor on the agenda of the determination of the urban management plan after the disposition of this case, and the defect of the disposition of this case was cured.

2) The legality of the project implementation approval disposition with some validity

The instant disposition is a project implementation approval disposition with the meaning of the designation of a project implementer and the designation of a planned project district. Since the competent administrative agency, as a discretionary authority, may partially approve the project progress stage as a discretionary authority, and additionally impose a duty to implement subsequent procedures, a disposition with the meaning of partial approval is legitimate. Therefore, the instant disposition is a disposition in itself that does not have the legal fiction effect of the authorized and permitted matters, and thus, the need to undergo prior consultation is lawful and effective.

3) As to the point of legal fiction of project approval

A) The project approval system under Article 31 of the Special Act on Assistance to the Disposition of this case takes effect.

B) Even if it is not deemed that the project approval system under Article 31 of the Special Act on Support for the Disposition of this case takes effect, this is merely an issue as to the time when the project approval agenda takes effect, and it is irrelevant to the legitimacy of the disposition of this case.

C) Even if the project approval scheme does not take effect as the instant disposition, it shall be deemed that the project approval scheme takes effect at the stage of the development plan that has completed the consultation on the determination of an urban management plan.

4) The procedures for hearing the opinions of the residents do not need to go through the instant disposition, and even if necessary, the procedures for hearing the opinions of the residents.

5) The environmental impact assessment procedure is adequate when the implementation plan is authorized at the stage that is deemed to be approved, and thus, it is not a procedural requirement required for the instant disposition that does not have the validity of the authorization agenda for the implementation plan.

6) The project of this case is recognized as public interest and feasibility in the formulation procedure of the comprehensive development plan for a project for the public interest, and it constitutes a project that can be implemented under the Special Support Act.

7) From the progress stage of the formulation procedure of the comprehensive development plan to the time of the instant disposition, the consultation procedure and hearing of opinions with the relevant administrative agencies and local governments necessary for the instant disposition, and thereby, the instant disposition was rendered by balancing interests in public and private interests, and thus did not deviate from and abuse the discretionary authority.

3. Relevant statutes;

Attached Form 2 is as shown in [Related Acts and subordinate statutes]

4. Determination

A. Purpose of legislation of the Special Support Act

The Act was enacted to promote the promotion of regional economy, balanced development between regions and the enhancement of residents' welfare by expanding the administrative financial support of the State, taking into account the fact that the development of the surrounding areas is relatively solid and backward to local residents in the case of the granted districts where the U.S. were stationed for 50 years in terms of national defense policies.

(b) The project implementation approval system under the Special Act on Support;

1) Pursuant to the relevant provisions of the Special Act on Support, among persons eligible to carry out the projects under the comprehensive plan under Article 8 and the annual business plan under Article 9 (hereinafter referred to as "project operator"), the project operator shall obtain approval from the head of the competent Si/Gun/Gu (hereinafter referred to as "project approval authority"), excluding the State, local governments, government-invested institutions, and local government-invested corporations. To obtain approval for the project, ① the name and purpose of the project, ② the details and scale of the project, ③ the address and name of the project operator, ④ the estimated project cost and the method of financing, ⑤ the implementation period of the project, ⑤ the project place (including the location), ② the plan for securing the required land, 7 the effect of the project, 9 the project plan and the investment plan containing the same matters as the relevant drawing, etc. shall be submitted to the project approval authority (Article 11(3) of the Act, Article 11(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act), and the approval authority shall review the feasibility of the submitted plan (Article 11(4)

As shown in the application, the approval for the implementation of the project under the Special Support Act is to review the current status, location, and surrounding circumstances of the workplace, the timing and subject of the implementation of the project, the appropriateness of the project, the contents, scale, method, possibility, and effect of the project indicated in the project plan, and to comprehensively consider the contents of the project.

2) Whether all authorization and permission matters subject to an agenda should be consulted prior to approval for the implementation of the project

A) Article 29(1) of the Special Support Act provides that when approval for the implementation of a project is granted pursuant to Article 11, the following authorization, permission, etc. shall be deemed granted, and the various authorization, permission, reporting, and approval matters shall be listed from subparagraphs 1 to 28. Paragraph (2) provides that "where approval for a project falling under paragraph (1) is granted, prior consultation shall be made with the head of the relevant central administrative agency and the head of the relevant local government." Thus, it is a question whether the approval for the implementation of a project should be made in a lump sum prior consultation with the head of the relevant central administrative agency and the head of the local government.

B) First, we examine the meaning of “consultation” in the above legal fiction of authorization and permission.

The provisions on constructive authorization and permission stipulate that permission, authorization, approval, etc. which belongs to the scope of the authority of other administrative agencies shall be deemed to have been granted when an administrative agency grants permission, authorization, approval, etc. within the scope of its own authority. Since the procedures for authorization, permission, etc. are complicated when a number of authorization, permission, etc. are individually granted by each administrative agency, the procedures for authorization, permission, etc. are met, and when consultation with the competent administrative agency is held with the competent administrative agency, it is intended to promote procedural convenience by integrating various procedures for the purpose of prompt decision-making of complex authorization, permission, etc. for the purpose of the purpose of business, and review whether the matters subject to constructive authorization, permission, etc. meet the substantive requirements for the relevant authorization, permission, etc., and whether the authorization, permission, etc. are required to be conducted to the same extent as when individual authorization, permission, and permission are to be rendered by each administrative agency.

Therefore, in the regulation of authorization and permission, the consultation with the relevant administrative agency is not merely to hear the opinion of the authorization and permission administrative agency subject to agenda, but also to seek the consent of the authorization and permission administrative agency subject to agenda.

C) should prior to the approval of the implementation of the project undergo consultation with the relevant administrative agency with respect to all matters subject to constructive authorization and permission.

For the following reasons, the Special Support Act cannot be deemed as the requirement for the approval for the implementation of a project, which is to obtain prior consultation on all the matters subject to the legal fiction of authorization or permission, and if the approval for the implementation of a project is granted after the review as mentioned in the above paragraph 1, it is reasonable to interpret that the special support Act has the effect of the approval or permission for the relevant matters in the future, but it is reasonable to interpret that the special support Act has the effect of the approval or permission for the relevant matters,

① According to the individual laws, the provisions on the application and requirements for approval or authorization, the provisions on the disposal thereof, and the provisions on the legal fiction of authorization or permission at the time of approval or authorization are separately prescribed in separate Articles, and the provisions on the legal fiction of authorization or permission shall be deemed to have been obtained only for the matters consulted with the head of the relevant administrative agency, or the related documents shall be submitted at the time of application for approval or authorization at the option of the person who intends to obtain such legal fiction. In such cases, even without prior consultation with the relevant administrative agency, the validity of this disposition shall be recognized as it is, but in such a case, it shall not be interpreted that the validity of the authorization or permission does not accrue for matters for which the applicant did not undergo consultation or fails to submit the relevant documents, and from the perspective of these Acts and subordinate statutes, the effect of the approval for the implementation of a project and the effect of

② Inasmuch as the pertinent agency’s consultation required under Article 18(1) of the Act refers to seeking the consent of an authorizing or permitting administrative agency and actually refers to an agreement. However, the demand for an application for approval for implementation of a project after specifically designing the matters subject to a building permit, permission for installation of discharge facilities, approval for installation of waste disposal facilities, and matters subject to permission for installation of fire-fighting facilities, etc. is required to determine all the detailed enforcement matters at the project implementation stage. As such, in the case of a project implementation with a considerable scale of need for support by the Special Act on Assistance, the provision of authorization or permission for the convenience of the procedure would result

③ According to the provisions of each individual law on project implementation, where an applicant intends to obtain constructive authorization or permission when filing an application for approval for project implementation (or authorization, etc.), the applicant may submit a review document on the matters subject to constructive authorization or permission so that the applicant can obtain such constructive authorization or permission, so that the applicant may seek procedural convenience and choose whether to use such facilities. However, even if the Special Act on Support does not require the applicant to submit the required documents even if the matters subject to constructive authorization or permission are established, it is possible to reduce the burden that the applicant may obtain the authorization or permission by personally ascertaining the matters necessary for the implementation of the project and by taking the procedures necessary for the constructive authorization or permission.

Therefore, since it is impossible to determine the details of the business contents to be implemented by the applicant at the time of application for approval for project implementation, it is a malle and wrong that the approving authority cannot confirm all the matters for authorization and permission, and it is contrary to the purport of allowing the applicant to prepare all the documents necessary for the matters for authorization and permission at the time of application for project implementation in order to ensure the convenience of the applicant. Thus, it is reasonable to give the approval for project implementation only for the matters that can be examined at a certain stage during the project implementation stage, and to have the necessary matters for authorization and permission take effect by meeting future requirements, taking into account the characteristics of conducting large-scale projects.

D) However, given that approval for the implementation of an urban planning facility project, such as a research facility or school, must examine the appropriateness and feasibility of the project, and determine the project contents and the project execution area, etc., other than the designation of a master project implementer, the determination of an urban management plan which is at least a basis must be prior to the determination of an urban management plan. In granting the initial approval for the implementation of the project, it is reasonable to view that prior consultation with the Governor of the Gyeonggi-do is required for matters regarding the determination of an urban

C. Whether the instant disposition had gone through a consultation procedure for the legal fiction of the determination of urban management planning prior to the instant disposition

However, as the legal effect of the instant disposition by the Defendant and the Intervenor, ① in addition to the legal effect of the determination of the urban management plan, ② designation of the project implementer, ③ designation of the planned project area, ④ approval of the project under the Public Works Act, the following is examined: (a) prior consultation procedure was conducted; and (b) in the following order, whether the legal requirements that can grant the effect of the instant disposition are satisfied: (c) designation of the project implementer

(i) legal fiction of determination of urban management planning;

A) In rendering the instant disposition, the determination of an urban management plan necessary for the instant disposition shall be based on the determination of changing the area of 214,717 square meters of agricultural and forest areas among the instant project sites to a planned management area capable of establishing an education and research facility complex, and the determination of installing the infrastructure,

However, the decision of change of specific use area belongs to the authority of the Governor of the Gyeonggi-do pursuant to Article 30 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, the decision of the facilities concerning schools in the decision of building infrastructure belongs to the authority of the Governor of the Gyeonggi-do pursuant to Article 30 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, and the decision of the facilities concerning research facilities belongs to the authority of the Governor of the Gyeonggi-do pursuant to Articles 30 and 139(2) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act

Therefore, the prior consultation procedure that must be required in the disposition of this case is the procedure that the defendant goes through the de facto agreement on the matters concerning the change of specific use area to the Gyeonggi-do Governor.

B) On April 30, 2007, after the Defendant had consulted on the change of specific use area, the Defendant filed an application for decision on the change of the urban management plan with the Gyeonggi-do Governor on April 30, 2007, and the Gyeonggi-do Governor made a decision on the change of specific use area of 214,717 square meters, an agricultural and forest area, among the instant project sites, as the Gyeonggi-do Public Notice No. 2007-5100 on August 27, 2007, through supplementation once, as seen in the above 1-D. Meanwhile, the approval for the implementation of the project in this case also includes the change of specific use area. In light of the fact that the decision on the change of specific use area was made in consideration of the project implementation in this case, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant had consulted on the change of specific use area among the approval for the implementation of the project in this case.

C) As to this, the Plaintiffs asserted to the effect that “the instant disposition is about the determination of school facilities, and the Defendant did not undergo prior consultation on the determination of school facilities with the Governor of the Gyeonggi-do.” However, since the type of facilities at the time of the instant disposition was a very strict research facility, the Plaintiffs’ assertion on the premise that the type of facilities was a school is without merit.

On the other hand, after the disposition of this case, the Defendant changed urban planning facilities from the research facilities to the school on July 17, 2008 after consultation with the Governor of Gyeonggi-do, and approved the change of project implementation with the purport of expanding the facility site from 540,179 square meters to 850,181 square meters, and the reason for the announcement is to change the content of the disposition in accordance with the legitimate procedure only after the disposition of this case is completed. Thus, the legality or validity of the disposition of this case already taken

Even if the disposition of this case is considered to be a content of school facility decision in a substantial sense, in light of the fact that the Gyeonggi-do Governor entered into an understanding note for the university attraction project with the defendant and the intervenor around October 11, 2006 on the camp zone including the project site of this case, and the Gyeonggi-do Governor established a comprehensive development plan including the contents of the above project and submitted it to the Minister of Government Administration and Home Affairs to the Minister of Government Administration and Home Affairs, the Governor of Gyeonggi-do is expected to install school facilities in the project site of this case before the disposition of this case. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant was subject to prior consultation with the Governor on school facility decision

D) Accordingly, the instant disposition is ultimately deemed to have been made at the same time, and the determination of an urban management plan under Article 30 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act is also deemed to have been made (Therefore, the Defendant and the Intervenor’s defect remedy claim against the instant disposition that did not take effect without prior consultation on the determination of an urban management plan was no longer needed to be examined).

(ii) the designation of a project implementer;

According to Article 86(5) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, since the authority to designate a project implementer is against the defendant, the defendant does not need to undergo the procedures for consultation with other organizations regarding the designation of the project implementer. Therefore, the disposition of this case was made at the same time and at the same time the designation of the project implementer under Article 86

3) Designation of planned business areas

The concept of the designation of the planned project area is merely the concept that the defendant voluntarily sets out as the guidelines for administrative affairs, and it is not the concept set out in the Special Support Act or the National Land Planning Act, so there is no basis for the designation of the planned project

In light of the purport of Article 29(3) of the Special Act on Assistance to the Development and Development of Housing Areas, the Defendant and the intervenor alleged that the designation stage of the planned area of the project in this case can be recognized by dividing it into the same stage as the “designation of the planned area of the housing site” as prescribed by the Housing Site Development Promotion Act. However, in light of the purport of Article 29(3) of the Special Act on Assistance to the Development and Development of Housing Areas, the concept of the Housing Site Development Promotion Act cannot be applied as far as the project in this case is not a housing site development project

4) Whether the project approval under the Public Works Act is effective

Article 31(5) of the Special Act on Assistance, which provides the legal fiction of project approval, provides that "the project approval and the notification of project approval shall be deemed to have been granted when the project approval is granted pursuant to Article 11." However, if there is a disposition of project approval, it would be deemed that the legal fiction takes effect at the time of the disposition, or if there is a disposition of project approval, it would be problematic whether the legal fiction has the legal effect of a specific authorization and permission through prior consultation, etc. even if there is

(2) A disposition to approve a project implementation shall be ① designated as a project operator. (2) Details of the project. The contents of the project are changed from the stage of formulating a general plan to the stage of formulating a detailed implementation plan that can be executed, and the contents of the project are different depending on the progress of the project. Since there are many cases where considerable time takes place in the progress of the project, the partial approval of the project may not be allowed only for the contents of the project determined by the stage.

However, approval for the implementation of a project involving only some of such legal effects is granted, and it is not clear whether such approval falls under “approval for the implementation of a project under Article 11” as stipulated in Article 31 of the Special Support Act as it is. Thus, it is ultimately connected to the issue of interpretation.

However, given that the project implementer’s exercise of discretionary authority over large-scale projects takes place over a considerable period of time, the purpose of allowing partial approval of the project implementation by stages is different from the context thereof. As such, the effective point of time of the project approval system should be distinguishable from the effective point of time of the project implementation approval which entails partial legal effect.

① It is reasonable to interpret Article 31 of the Special Act on Assistance as an urban planning facility project under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act among the projects subject to the application of the Special Act on Assistance. It is reasonable to consider the National Land Planning and Utilization Act as a basic interpretation standard for interpreting Article 31 of the Special Act on Assistance. The National Land Planning and Utilization Act grants the effect of the project approval only at the time of authorization of the implementation plan. ② In light of the fact that there is a concern that the expropriation and compensation procedure may bring unnecessary restrictions on the exercise of ownership to many interested parties when the project approval is recognized as effective as a project approval under the Public Works Act at the early stage of the formulation of the project plan, it is reasonable to deem that the time when the project approval is deemed to be granted is not the time of the instant disposition but the time when the authorization of the implementation plan is deemed to be the time when the authorization

Therefore, as seen earlier, the instant disposition is merely accompanied by the determination of an urban management plan and the effect of designating a project implementer, and does not involve the legal fiction of authorization of an implementation plan as the Defendant or the Intervenor voluntarily acknowledged, and thus, it is not deemed that the instant disposition was project approval under the Public Works Act.

D. Whether the revocation of the instant disposition accompanied by some effects

In the instant disposition, not only all the authorization and permission matters related to the instant project are not legal fiction, but also some of the effects asserted by the Defendant (the legal fiction of determination of urban management planning, project implementer designation) have occurred, as long as the instant disposition was legally made in accordance with the Act and subordinate statutes and the designation of a project implementer became effective when the instant disposition took place, the instant disposition cannot be deemed unlawful solely on the ground that the instant disposition has only a part of the effect asserted by the Defendant, and thus, it cannot be revoked.

E. Regarding the remaining arguments by the plaintiffs

1) As to the assertion of violation of procedures for hearing residents' opinions

The Special Support Act provides for a public hearing as a procedure to hear the opinions of the residents at the time of formulating a development plan, but does not provide for the provision that a public hearing shall be held at the time of approving the implementation plan, and the legal effect of authorization and permission does not require all procedures to recognize the validity of the determination of the urban management plan when obtaining approval for the implementation plan. Thus, the Governor of Gyeonggi-do held a public hearing pursuant to Article 7(1) of the Special Support Act and Article 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act at the time of establishing the development plan that includes the project contents of this case, and the public hearing was held pursuant to Article 7(1) of the Special Support Act and Article 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act at the time of establishing the development plan that includes the project contents of this case, and the defendant did not undergo the procedure for hearing the opinions of the residents in the instant disposition, and thus, it cannot be deemed that any right guaranteed by the Constitution is violated

2) As to the assertion of violation of the impact assessment procedure such as environment

According to Article 28(2) of the National Land Planning Act and Article 28(2) of the Environmental Impact Assessment Act, approval authority shall not approve the project plan, etc. prior to the completion of the procedures for consultation on environmental impact assessment. However, it may be interpreted as having gone through the procedures for impact assessment prior to all approval dispositions. Meanwhile, according to Articles 17 and 14(1) [Attachment 1] of the Environmental Impact Assessment Act and Article 14(1) [Attachment 1] of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, a project subject to environmental impact assessment is “(a) where the site area among the construction works conducted by schools under Article 9 of the Framework Act on Education is more than 30,00 square meters” and a project subject to environmental impact assessment meets the requirements for authorization of the implementation plan under Article 8(2) of the National Land Planning Act, and where the implementation plan is implemented under the provisions of Article 88(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the National Land Planning Act prior to the implementation of the project for environmental impact assessment prior to the completion of the consultation on environmental impact assessment.”

As long as the disposition of this case constitutes partial approval prior to the establishment of the legal fiction as an implementation plan, it is sufficient to submit an environmental impact assessment report before the implementation plan of the project of this case is authorized, and to implement the consultation procedure on environmental impact assessment before the disposition of this case, and it is not illegal since the plaintiffs' above assertion is without merit.

3) As to the assertion of lack of public interest in business

The contents of the project in this case are to establish a large-scale education and research facility complex for the Egrative state university, which has the public interest purpose in its nature, and there is a plan to build a complex with multiple functions, such as education function, research function, academic exchange function, and community exchange function. In light of the contents of the project, the expected number of residents and the area of the project are not excessive. Therefore, the above assertion by the plaintiffs is without merit (In addition, since the effect of the legal fiction of project approval under the Public Works Act is automatically recognized at the time when the approval of the implementation plan is deemed pursuant to Article 88 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act is deemed to have occurred later, the public interest of the project is automatically recognized, and

4) As to the assertion of deviation and abuse of discretionary power

In full view of the following facts: (a) attracting the instant project consisting of a public-private partnership project to build an education and research facility in order to develop the regional economy in the underdeveloped-si region; (b) examining the appropriateness of the project area and the project area through deliberation procedures by the Development Committee consisting of the heads of relevant agencies and the heads of local governments in formulating a comprehensive development plan; (c) gathering opinions from relevant experts and residents at a public hearing at the time of the establishment of the development plan; (d) holding consultation with the Governor of the Gyeonggi-do in relation to the determination of the urban management plan; and (e) holding consultation with the Governor of the Gyeonggi-do regarding the determination of the urban management plan; and (e)

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Choi Young-young (Presiding Judge)

1) The total floor space of the facilities falling under each item is the sum of the total floor space of the facilities. The area indicated in the same column is the sum.

Note 2) Internet Notice was made on March 25, 2008, while Official Gazette Notice was made on March 26, 2008.

3) It is an abbreviation of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act.

4) On the premise that the Defendant may divide the project implementation stage of this case into four steps, and take a disposition of approval for the project implementation of this case at the two steps determined by the Defendant, the Plaintiff asserted that the attachment of “approval conditions” to the instant disposition at the two steps determined by the Defendant was added to the implementation requirements for constructive approval and permission necessary for the implementation of the project at the next three and fourth stages. However, the Plaintiffs asserted illegality by expressing the instant disposition as “conditional approval.” However, the “approval conditions”, which is the implementation items added by the Defendant, do not mean that the Intervenor would naturally extinguish the validity of the instant disposition in the event the Intervenor does not comply with it. Thus, it is inappropriate to say that it is a conditional approval. Ultimately, the Plaintiffs asserted to deny the approval of the project implementation that only some of the project contents falling under the interim stage and grants the validity of the approval. Therefore, the Plaintiffs asserted illegality of the partial approval of the project implementation.

(2) Designation of the project district to be designated as the project implementer ③ Approval of the development plan ④ Approval of the implementation plan, which is divided into the execution plan, and the procedure for approval of the project implementation was carried out.

Note 6) Attached Form 3 [See Various Individual Acts on the Implementation of Certain Projects]

Note 7) Annex 3 [Attachment 3]

Note 8) The project above-level is a project under Article 29(1)(2) through (6) of the Special Act on Assistance.

9) A kind of general law related to the projects under Article 29(1)2 through 6 of the Special Support Act is an individual law provided for in each subparagraph.