[1] In a case where two independent administrative dispositions that cause separate legal effects are unable to dispute the validity of the preceding disposition due to the lack of dispute, whether the defect of the preceding disposition is succeeded to the subsequent disposition (negative)

[2] In a case where a prior disposition and a subsequent disposition aim at a separate legal effect independently, whether the validity of the subsequent disposition can be asserted on the grounds of defects in the prior disposition (negative)

[1] The Minister of Construction and Transportation's designation of a prearranged area for housing site development under Article 3 of the Housing Site Development Promotion Act is a disposition that specifies the location and area of the land to be developed by the public notice of the said disposition and the contents of rights restricted in its exercise. On the other hand, the approval of the housing site development plan for the operator of the housing site development project under Article 8 of the said Act is a disposition that, by recognizing that the relevant project falls under the housing site development project under the housing site development project under Article 8 of the said Act, the implementer establishes a certain right to expropriate on the condition that the project should go through a certain procedure thereafter, and the scope of the object to be expropriated by the public notice of approval is finalized. Thus, the above two dispositions are based on the premise that the former dispositions are subject to the former dispositions, but if it becomes impossible to dispute the effects of the preceding dispositions due to the occurrence of an independent legal effect by phase

[2] Where a preceding and subsequent dispositions are aimed at legal effects separate from each other, the validity of the preceding dispositions shall not be asserted on the grounds of defects of the preceding dispositions, except where the defects of the preceding dispositions are deemed null and void as the defects of the preceding dispositions are significant and apparent.

[1] Articles 3 and 8 of the Housing Site Development Promotion Act, Articles 1 [general Administrative Disposition] and 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [2] Articles 3 and 8 of the Housing Site Development Promotion Act, Articles 1 [general Administrative Disposition] and 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 86Nu256 delivered on August 19, 1986 (Gong1986, 1248), Supreme Court Decision 91Nu11582 delivered on August 14, 1992 (Gong1992, 2683) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 91Nu4324 delivered on March 13, 1992 (Gong1992, 1317), Supreme Court Decision 91Nu4567 delivered on February 9, 1993 (Gong193, 986), Supreme Court Decision 93Nu8542 delivered on January 25, 1994 (Gong194, 849)

[Judgment of the court below]

The Minister of Construction and Transportation

Seoul High Court Decision 94Gu3652 delivered on June 20, 1995

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the designation of a planned housing site development district by the Minister of Construction and Transportation under Article 3 of the Housing Site Development Promotion Act is a disposition specifying the location and area of the land to be developed by the public notice of the said disposition and the contents of the right restricted in its exercise, while approval of the housing site development plan for the operator of the housing site development project by the Minister of Construction and Transportation under Article 8 of the same Act is a disposition that recognizes the relevant project as falling under the housing site development project under the Housing Site Development Promotion Act and establishes a certain expropriation right on the condition that the operator should go through a certain procedure thereafter, and the scope of an object to be expropriated by the public notice of approval is finalized. Thus, the above two dispositions are based on the premise that the former dispositions are based on the former dispositions, but if it becomes impossible to dispute the effects of the preceding dispositions, the defect of the preceding dispositions shall not be succeeded to the subsequent dispositions unless there is a reason for invalidation. In light of the records and related Acts and subordinate statutes, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to succession of administrative defects.

2. Meanwhile, in a case where the preceding and subsequent dispositions are aimed at a separate legal effect independent of each other, the validity of the subsequent dispositions shall not be asserted on the ground of the defect of the preceding dispositions, except in a case where the defect of the preceding dispositions is grave and obvious, so that the defect of the preceding dispositions is null and void (see Supreme Court Decision 91Nu4324, Mar. 13, 1992; 93Nu8542, Jan. 25, 1994).

However, under the premise that the defects of the designation of the housing site development area are succeeded to the approval disposition of the housing site development plan, the remaining grounds that the plaintiff considered as the grounds for appeal are disputing the illegality of the approval disposition of the development plan of the housing site under the premise of the designation disposition of the housing site development area under the premise that there is an illegality as pointed out in the grounds for appeal as to the designation disposition of the housing site development area under the premise that the defects of the designation disposition of the housing site development area are included in the land in this case, and as seen above, the grounds for appeal disputing the illegality of the designation disposition of the housing site development area

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

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)