The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the main claim (Ground of appeal No. 1), the lower court determined that the instant request for supplementation was not a rejection disposition against the application for the modification of the implementation plan extending the period of project implementation stipulated in the instant authorization, but merely an instruction on the supplementary matters to be equipped where the new implementation plan is to be approved on the premise that the instant authorization was invalidated.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal principles as to the interpretation of disposition and declaration of intent subject to an appeal litigation.

2. As to the conjunctive claim (Ground of appeal No. 2), the lower court determined that the instant authorization was invalidated due to the expiration of the project implementation period, and thereafter, even if the Defendant revised the implementation plan to extend the Plaintiff’s project implementation period upon the Plaintiff’s application for modification, the authorization of this case already invalidated cannot be retroactively effective. Thus, even if the Defendant’s omission in the instant application was verified to be illegal, it is impossible to realize the objective of the instant application to be extended without interruption of the validity of the instant authorization, and thus, there was no benefit in filing a lawsuit seeking confirmation that the omission was unlawful.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, there is no error in the judgment of the court below by misapprehending the legal principles as to the invalidation of authorization of implementation plans for urban planning facility projects and the interest of litigation.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. 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.