A. Legal nature of the authorization of the urban planning project implementation plan

(b) Validity of authorization to alter the implementation plan of the urban planning project after the period of implementation expires;

A. Article 30(2) of the former Urban Planning Act (amended by Act No. 4427 of Dec. 14, 191) provides that the authorization of an implementation plan for an urban planning project shall be considered as the project approval under Article 14 of the Land Expropriation Act. Such a project approval has the nature of an administrative disposition that establishes a certain content on the condition that it should go through a certain procedure after the project approval, and it becomes an object of administrative litigation independently. The scope of the object to be expropriated is determined by the project approval, and the right to be expropriated may be contested against the present and future right holder on the object.

B. The executor of the urban planning project shall apply for a ruling on the acquisition of land owned by another person or expropriation of land required for the urban planning project under a private law within the project implementation period specified in the authorization of the implementation plan of the urban planning project notified at the latest. If the acquisition procedure is not prior to the project implementation period, the authorization of the implementation plan of the urban planning project shall be invalidated, and if the implementation plan is extended after authorization of the implementation plan expires, the authorization of the implementation plan shall be invalidated, and it shall not be retroactively effective. However, since the authorization of the implementation plan of the urban planning project is a disposition that establishes the authority to implement the urban planning project, the authorization of the implementation plan of the urban planning project shall not be different from the initial authorization. Thus, if

Articles 30(2) and 25(1) of the former Urban Planning Act (amended by Act No. 4427 of Dec. 14, 191)

A.B. Supreme Court Decision 90Nu9971 delivered on November 26, 1991 (Gong1992,323). Supreme Court Decision 87Nu395 delivered on September 8, 1987 (Gong1987,1583) 87Nu1141 delivered on December 27, 1988 (Gong1989,246)

[Judgment of the court below]

Seoul High Court Decision 92Gu1185 delivered on November 24, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

As to the violation of the rules of evidence and the incomplete hearing

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the fact-finding of the court below is acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence in the incomplete hearing such as the theory of lawsuit.

For the subject of the right to approve the implementation plan for urban planning projects

According to Articles 25(1) and 10(1) of the Urban Planning Act (amended by Act No. 4427 of Dec. 14, 1991; hereinafter the same), and Article 6(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13684 of Jul. 1, 1992; hereinafter the same), the Minister of Construction and Transportation shall decide on and modify the urban planning plan directly formulated by him, and the Minister of Construction and Transportation shall approve or modify the implementation plan for urban planning projects implemented by the Minister of Construction and Transportation, and shall not apply to exceptional cases prescribed by Article 6(1) proviso of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no reason to argue in the opposite position.

Concerning the necessity of land expropriation

1. In short, the Do governor, who is the executor of the instant urban planning project, prepares an urban planning plan to incorporate the instant land into a road due to an error in surveying even though there is no need to incorporate it into a road, and obtained the authorization for modification of the implementation plan for the urban planning project from the Do governor. In fact, the instant land is not used as a road even until January 17, 192 when the vicarious execution on the instant ground buildings was completed. As such, the purport of the instant land expropriation is that it is invalid because it was based on a wrong survey and a false official

2. Article 30(2) of the same Act provides that the authorization of an implementation plan for an urban planning project shall be considered as the project approval under Article 14 of the Land Expropriation Act. Such project approval is an independent administrative litigation that has the nature of an administrative disposition that establishes a certain expropriation right on the condition that it shall go through a certain procedure thereafter, and it shall be deemed that the scope of an object to be expropriated is determined by obtaining such project approval and shall bring about the effect of a kind of right in public law that can oppose the present and future right holders of the object (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Nu395, Sept. 8, 1987; 8Nu1141, Dec. 27, 198). Since the approval of an implementation plan for an urban planning project and the aforementioned approval are conducted through a series of procedures to achieve the same administrative purpose as the adjudication of expropriation, it shall be deemed that there is no illegality in the invalidation of the preceding disposition after being combined with one another, or that there is no defect in the preceding disposition after being void and void (see, even if there is no illegality).

3. Since the above defects are not shown as grounds to invalidate the modification authorization of the implementation plan of an urban planning project, which established the right of expropriation, the Plaintiff cannot seek the cancellation or invalidation of the authorization of the modification authorization of the implementation plan of an urban planning project for the above reasons, separate from seeking the cancellation cancellation of the modification authorization of the implementation plan of an urban planning project for the above reasons.

Although the judgment below did not contain any inadequate points in its reasoning, it is legitimate in its conclusion that it rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that the authorization for modification of the urban planning project implementation plan is null and void, and thus, the argument of the theory of lawsuit cannot be accepted. The argument is without merit

For the implementation period of urban planning projects:

The executor of the urban planning project shall apply for a ruling on the acquisition of land owned by another person or expropriation of land necessary for the urban planning project under a private contract within the project implementation period set forth in the authorization of the implementation plan of the urban planning project notified at the latest. If the acquisition procedure is not prior to the project implementation period, the authorization of the implementation plan of the urban planning project shall be invalidated, the authorization of the implementation plan shall be extended after the lapse of the implementation period, and the authorization of the implementation plan shall not be effective retroactively. However, since the authorization of the implementation plan of the urban planning project is a disposition that establishes the authority to implement the urban planning project, the authorization of the implementation plan of the urban planning project shall not be different from the initial authorization. Thus, if the authorization of the modification satisfies the requirements for a new authorization, it shall be effective (see Supreme Court Decision 90Nu971 delivered on Nov. 26, 191)

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, it shall be deemed that the approval of the execution plan was invalidated since the acceptance application was not filed within the original project implementation period specified in the approval of the implementation plan for an urban planning project. However, even if there was an error of omission of some of the matters stipulated in Article 27 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act in the public notice of the approval, it cannot be deemed that it was null and void as a matter of course. Thus, the court below's reasoning of holding that the approval of the acceptance decision of this case, which was filed within the modified project implementation period, has a validity as a new project implementation plan, is acceptable, and there is no error of law that points out the theory of lawsuit.

As to the defect in the confinement procedure

Even if there is all the defect in the expropriation procedure such as the preparation of a land protocol or consultation, etc., this cannot be said to be a grave and obvious defect that can invalidate the adjudication of expropriation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Nu2148, Aug. 13, 1993; 93Nu543, Sept. 10, 1993; 93Nu5543, Sept. 10, 1993); therefore, the judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there

Therefore, the 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.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)