A. Whether a specific land is not included in the determination of the original urban planning even if it was publicly notified as an education and research district after the determination of the urban planning (negative)

B. Whether a specific land is excluded from an urban planning zone, if it goes beyond the area subject to urban planning on the forest inspection map installed by the Gu office, since it is marked as the area subject to urban planning as the area subject to urban planning determination and

A. According to Article 18 of the former Urban Planning Act (amended by Act No. 4427 of Dec. 14, 1991), if necessary, the Minister of Construction and Transportation may determine the designation of an educational and research zone as an urban planning zone. Thus, even if a certain land is designated and publicly notified as an educational and research zone after the determination of urban planning, it cannot be said that the said land is not included in the original urban planning decision.

(b)The subject of the determination and publication by the Minister of Construction and Transportation is determined by the contents of the decision and publication and the drawings attached thereto, and it is not determined by the forest inspection map prepared and kept by the Gu office for public perusal. Thus, if certain land is indicated as the subject of the urban planning decision and its publication, it shall not be excluded from the urban planning zone on the forest inspection map installed by the Gu office.

Articles 12, 13, and 18 of the former Urban Planning Act (amended by Act No. 4427 of Dec. 14, 191)

Plaintiff 1 and 7 Plaintiffs’ legal representative

The Minister of Construction and Transportation

Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu19833 delivered on January 30, 1992

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

As to the Plaintiffs’ grounds of appeal

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, on March 9, 1976, the land of this case is adjoining to the land which was divided into the site under the Housing Site Development Project, which is one of the main sites under the Housing Site Development Project in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and the defendant made a decision on November 15, 1980 on urban planning facilities (park) with a lot number of land 20,609,061 square meters in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Gwanak-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and Gyeonggi-do, which is located within the city development project, and made a public announcement as prescribed in Article 369 of the Public Notice of Construction Division. The public announcement did not state specific lot number in addition to the substitute location and total lot area of the urban planning zone, but it was difficult to distinguish the land of this case from the land which was divided by the road because it did not indicate specific boundary or lot number of the land which was included in the urban planning area or the land lot number of the above land. However, in comparison with the public announcement and other topographical map, the above land was not included in the urban planning area.

The above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are justified.

According to Article 18 of the Urban Planning Act (amended by Act No. 4427 of Dec. 14, 191), if necessary, the Minister of Construction and Transportation may determine the designation of an education and research district as an urban planning district. Thus, even if the land in this case was designated and publicly announced as an education and research district after the decision of the urban planning of this case, it cannot be deemed that the land in this case is not included in the original urban planning district. In addition, the purport of the decision of the court below that the land in this case is located within the above urban planning district is included in the purport of rejecting the plaintiffs' assertion against it. Furthermore, the object of the urban planning decision is determined by the Minister of Construction and Transportation's decision and public notice, and the forest inspection being prepared and kept for public perusal by the Gu office, and it is not determined by the forest inspection plan. If certain land is indicated as the object of the urban planning decision and public notice, it is not excluded from the urban planning district.

Therefore, there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles, misunderstanding of facts, or incomplete deliberation, as pointed out in the judgment of the court below that the land of this case is included in the above urban planning decision.

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the land of this case is included in the urban planning area of this case by the lot number or the boundary between lots of land of this case, but the land of this case and its surrounding land are indicated in the form of (road 1 omitted) prior to partition, although the topographical map prepared by the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City for cadastral approval and its public announcement under Article 13 of the Urban Planning Act does not stipulate the boundary between lots of land of this case and the boundary between lots of land of this case, the lot number of the land of this case and its surrounding land and the boundary between them are indicated in the urban planning area within the boundary of urban planning facilities, and the land of this case is included in the urban planning area of this case by the lot number or boundary of neighboring land. On the other hand, the land inspection map drawn up and installed by the Gwanak-gu Office to be offered for public perusal by the public, which was corrected by the time of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor's failure to include the land of this case in the urban planning area of this case by the topographical map prepared by the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

Therefore, there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles, misunderstanding of facts, and incomplete hearing, such as theory of lawsuit in the judgment below.

All appeals are 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.