The purport of allowing residents to publicly announce and peruse the details of the urban management plan when the competent administrative agency formulates the urban management plan under the Acts and subordinate statutes on the planning and utilization of the Gu / Where the Do Governor intends to modify the draft initial urban management plan requested by the head of the Si/Gun, whether he/she shall send the details thereof to the head

The purpose of Article 28(1), (2), (3), and (4) of the former National Land Planning and Utilization Act (amended by Act No. 9552, Mar. 25, 2009; hereinafter “Act”); Article 22(5) of the former Enforcement Decree of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22128, Apr. 20, 2010; hereinafter “Enforcement Decree”) is to allow the competent administrative agency to publicly announce and peruse the contents of the relevant urban management plan to residents when formulating the urban management plan is to prevent unfair infringement of the rights of the people and to secure democracy and trust in administration by rationally adjusting the interests of the majority interested parties, thereby reflecting the opinions of the people in the relevant process.

The significance and necessity of the procedures for hearing opinions of residents is not only the process of formulating an urban management plan, but also the same in cases where the details of an urban management plan are changed following the consultation of the relevant administrative agency and deliberation by the urban planning committee, etc. after the application is filed with the Do Governor. The same applies to a modification of an important matter in the urban management plan filed by the Do Governor in the course of determining the urban management plan, which is not different from the Do Governor’s formulation of a draft directly by the head of the relevant Si/Gun, within the scope of the modification. Therefore, where the Do Governor intends to modify the draft of the initial urban management plan, which reflects the consultation, etc. of the relevant administrative agency, the details thereof are important matters prescribed by the urban planning ordinance of the relevant Si/Gun, barring any special circumstances,

Article 28(1), (2), (3), and (4) of the former National Land Planning and Utilization Act (Amended by Act No. 9552, Mar. 25, 2009); Article 22(5) of the former Enforcement Decree of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 22128, Apr. 20, 2010);

Supreme Court Decision 87Nu388 delivered on May 24, 198 (Gong1988, 998) Supreme Court Decision 98Du2768 delivered on March 23, 200 (Gong200Sang, 1067)

Plaintiff 1 and 11 others (Law Firm CS et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Governor of Gyeonggi-do

The Yangju Market

Seoul High Court Decision 2011Nu17228 decided April 20, 2012

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant, including those resulting from supplementary participation.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 28(1) of the former National Land Planning and Utilization Act (amended by Act No. 9552, Mar. 25, 2009; hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) provides that when the head of a Si/Gun formulates an urban management plan, he/she shall hear opinions of residents unless it falls under a case of insignificant matters prescribed by Presidential Decree, etc., and shall reflect such opinions in the urban management plan if deemed reasonable. Paragraph (2) and (3) of the same Article provides that when the head of a Si/Gun formulates an urban management plan directly pursuant to Article 24(6) of the Act, including the matters to be determined by an urban management plan, which is a plan for the project directly formulated by the Do Governor, who is a person entitled to decide on an urban management plan, the head of the Si/Gun shall send the relevant Si/Gun to hear opinions of residents on the draft of the urban management plan and shall submit the result to the Do Governor within the time limit, he/she shall hear opinions of residents and shall reflect such opinions again in the urban management plan or municipal ordinance.

As can be seen, the purport of the Act is to allow the competent administrative agency to publicly announce and peruse the details of the relevant urban management plan when formulating the urban management plan is to prevent unfair infringement on the rights of citizens and to ensure democratization and trust in administration by reasonably adjusting the interests of many interested parties (see Supreme Court Decisions 87Nu388, May 24, 198; 98Du2768, March 23, 2000). The significance and necessity of the procedures for hearing opinions of residents is not only the process of formulating the urban management plan, but also the same applies where the contents of the plan are changed through the consultation of the relevant administrative agency and the deliberation of the urban management plan after the application is filed with the Do Governor. The same applies to the case where the Do Governor modifies the important matters of the urban management plan that was filed by the head of the relevant Si/Gun in the process of determining the urban management plan, excluding the draft urban management plan applied by the head of the relevant administrative agency, and to formulate a direct draft of the urban management plan within the scope, barring special circumstances prescribed by Article 28(2).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the defendant's intervenor applied for the decision of the urban management plan of this case to the defendant on November 6, 2008 through the four-time public announcement and inspection process to hear the opinions of the residents, and that the above urban management plan was changed to additionally incorporate the land owned by the plaintiffs into roads, parking lots, neighboring parks and public office sites after consultation with related administrative agencies and deliberation by the Gyeonggi-do Urban Planning Committee after such application, etc., and determined that the decision of the urban management plan of this case and the notice of topographic drawings based thereon, which are different from the contents of the modified urban management plan publicly announced and perused by the defendant's intervenor by the defendant's intervenor, are omitted from the procedures for hearing the opinions of residents as to the modified part. Thus, although

In light of the above legal principles and records, such determination by the court below is just, and there is no error of misapprehending the legal principles as to the procedures for hearing residents' opinions in the process of establishing an urban management plan.

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 on the bench.

Justices Park Poe-young (Presiding Justice)