[1] The legal nature of the disposition to entrust the management of urban park facilities by the park management agency (=the discretionary act) and whether a father is permitted (affirmative) and its content limitations

[2] The case holding that the revocation of the management entrustment to the original trustee by the park management agency or the rejection of the application for the approval of transfer or takeover of the management entrustment to the transferee is justifiable on the grounds of the violation of the prohibition of transfer of the right

[1] Article 6 (2) of the Urban Park Act allows a park management agency to entrust the management of an urban park or park facilities to a person other than the park management agency and use and benefit from such park facilities, etc. is a beneficial administrative act that gives rights or benefits to the other party. Unless otherwise expressly provided for in the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, it belongs to the discretionary act of the management agency, unless otherwise expressly provided for in the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes. In such discretionary act, unless otherwise expressly provided for in the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, an additional authority may be attached to achieve administrative purposes. Since the contents of the additional authority are consistent with the principle of proportionality and the principle of equality, and it is within the extent that the intrinsic effect of the administrative disposition is not undermined

[2] The case holding that the revocation of the management entrustment to the original trustee by the park management agency or the rejection of the application for the transfer of the management entrustment to the transferee is justifiable on the grounds of the violation of the prohibition of transfer of the right to entrust the management of

[1] Articles 1 [General Administrative Disposition] and 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 6 (2) of the Urban Park Act / [2] Articles 1 [General Administrative Disposition], 2 and 27 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 6 (2) of the Urban Park Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 90Nu8688 delivered on October 11, 1991 (Gong1991, 2737), Supreme Court Decision 96Nu1698 delivered on March 14, 1997 (Gong1997Sang, 1140), Supreme Court Decision 96Nu545 delivered on October 2, 1998 (Gong1998Ha, 2608)

Plaintiff 1 and five others (Attorneys Cho Young-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee)

Head of Gwanak-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City

Seoul High Court Decision 95Gu13878 delivered on November 21, 1996

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 6 (2) of the Urban Park Act permits the park management authority to use and benefit from park facilities when entrusting the management of any urban park or park facilities to any person other than the park management authority, which entails the effect of giving rights and benefits to the other party. Unless otherwise expressly provided for in the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such discretionary act belongs to the discretionary act of the management authority, unless otherwise expressly provided for in the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, and in order to achieve administrative purposes, unless otherwise expressly provided for in the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, additional clauses may be attached to the act of discretion of the management authority. The contents of such additional clauses are within the extent that they are able to perform, comply with the principle of proportionality and the principle of equality, and are within the extent that the intrinsic effect of administrative disposition is not undermined (see Supreme Court Decision 96Nu1698, Mar. 1

However, according to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found facts as stated in its judgment after compiling the evidence presented in its judgment, and added condition that the defendant, while entrusting the management of the store of this case which is an urban park facility, may take necessary measures, such as prohibiting the transfer of the entrusted management authority to the trustee, and the cancellation of the entrusted management authority in cases where the defendant violated this prohibition, shall not be deemed to violate the superior laws and regulations in light of the fact that the act of the existing merchants at the same time as the park maintenance and preventing the recurrence of the act of the existing merchants at the same time, and the act of protecting their livelihood is committed at the same time, and since the transfer of the entrusted management authority to the plaintiffs in violation of the conditions of the prohibition of transfer of this case was transferred to the plaintiffs, the refusal disposition of this case as of February 21, 1995 is just, and it does not violate the principle of trust protection and equity, and it does not constitute a case where the revocation of the entrusted management of this case or the rejection disposition by the above assistant does not have any need for public interest.

In light of the records and relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the above fact-finding and determination by the court below are just, and there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to Article 27 of the Urban Park Act, the exercise of the right to withdrawal, the principle of trust and equity, the rules of evidence, the violation of the rules of evidence, the omission of judgment, the contradiction of reasons, and the lack

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)