2020du46004. Disposition of rejecting applications for cancellation of approval for housing construction project plans

Action for Cancellation Claim

Housing Construction Co., Ltd.

Law Firm Busan, Attorney NaGyeong-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant

Port Markets

Sable Housing Co., Ltd.

Daegu High Court Decision 2019Nu3927 decided July 10, 2020

January 14, 2021

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant supplementary intervenor.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2

The lower court determined that the Plaintiff was in the legal position to seek revocation of the instant business plan regarding the gold mine construction business (hereinafter referred to as “gold mine construction business”). Examining the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding dispositions that are subject to appeal litigation, standing to sue, etc., contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

A. Although there was no particular defect at the time of the disposition, and there was no need to continue the original disposition even if there was no separate legal ground for the revocation of the disposition after the disposition, or where there was a change in circumstances that led to no need to continue the disposition, or where the need for important public interest arises, the disposition agency which rendered an administrative act may withdraw the same: Provided, That in cases where the cancellation, withdrawal, or suspension of the administrative act is done, it would infringe on the people's vested rights. Therefore, even if there is a reason for revocation, the exercise of the right of revocation, etc. requires to be necessary to protect the important public interest needs or a third party's interests to justify the infringement of the right of vested rights, and in comparison and comparison with the disadvantage suffered by the other party, it may be allowed only where the need for public interest, etc. is strong enough to justify the disadvantage suffered by the other party (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Du4119

B. Article 3 and Article 1 of the Addenda of the Housing Act (amended by Act No. 11871, Jun. 4, 2013; hereinafter referred to as the "Revised Housing Act") provide that the amended provisions, such as Article 16(12)2 and 3 concerning the cancellation, etc. of approval of a project plan shall apply from the first application for a project plan after December 5, 2013, the enforcement date thereof. As such, the former Housing Act (amended by Act No. 11871, Jun. 4, 2013; hereinafter referred to as the "former Housing Act") applies to the instant project plan, which was filed before December 5, 2013, for which the Plaintiff was unable to request the Plaintiff to cancel the approval of the project plan of this case on the ground that there was no significant change in the name of the Plaintiff’s project operator in the name of the land for which the approval of the project plan was approved, or that there was no need to cancel the approval of the project plan of this case due to the cancellation or cancellation of the ownership of the land.

D. Examining the aforementioned legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the interpretation of Article 3 of the Addenda to the amended Housing Act and the deviation and abuse of discretionary power, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. Conclusion

The defendant assistant intervenor's appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Supreme Court Decision 201

Justices Kim Jae-in

Justices Min Il-young in charge

Justices Lee Jae-hwan