1. The validity of a disposition of permission for reclamation taken by the Do Governor with respect to the undeveloped land the area of which is 6,404 square meters or less than ten information (per annum void)

In the event that the area of one complex is less than 10 information as 6,404 square meters and less than 10 information, it is clear that the Do Governor has the authority to grant permission for the reclamation under Article 2 (5) of the Farmland Creation Act, but the permission for the reclamation and the authorization for the completion of the reclamation are significant and apparent and void due to the administrative disposition without authority.

Article 4 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 2 of the Farmland Creation Act (Act No. 1872), Articles 18 and 19 of the Farmland Creation Act (Act No. 1872), Article 2 of the Farmland Creation Promotion Act, Article 2 and Article 3 of the Addenda of the Farmland Expansion and Development Promotion Act (Act No. 2767)

【Court Decision 84Nu463 decided Oct. 10, 1984 (Gong7411)

Plaintiff

Jeonnam-do Governor

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The disposition that the Defendant rendered the Plaintiff on October 6, 1982 revocation of the permission for reclamation on December 9, 1970 and the authorization for completion on December 23, 1981.

Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the plaintiff and the defendant shall be borne by the defendant, and the part arising from the participation by the defendant shall be borne by the defendant.

As for the maintenance of 6,404 square meters in the total area including land owned by an intervenor who owned the above assistant farmland improvement association on December 9, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the "land of this case"), the permission for reclamation pursuant to the Farmland Creation Act (No. 1872 of January 16, 1967 and the Act repealed by the Act No. 2767 of the Farmland Expansion and Development Promotion Act of April 11, 197) was granted to the plaintiff on December 23, 1981; the permission for the reclamation of the land of this case was granted to the plaintiff on October 6, 1982 by the head of the above assistant farming association; the permission for the reclamation of the land of this case was revoked without the consent of the head of the above assistant farming association on May 1, 197; the permission for the reclamation of the land of this case was revoked without the consent of the head of the above assistant farming association on March 20, 198.

The plaintiff's legal representative, on the ground that the disposition of cancellation is unlawful, first of all, because the land of this case constitutes a case where the area of one complex of the undeveloped land is less than 10 information under the Farmland Creation Act, and thus, the defendant's authority to permit the reclamation as above is a superior authority. Thus, the above disposition of permission for the reclamation cannot be deemed as a defective administrative disposition as long as the above disposition of permission for the reclamation is null and void. Second, even if the plaintiff's land of this case is developed by the above association, the above association did not interfere with public purposes due to the increase in water storage quantity of the large reservoir. Thus, the above land of this case is not a land for which the use plan for public purposes has become final and conclusive, and it cannot be deemed as a serious defect in the above disposition of permission for the reclamation, and third, since the above permission for the reclamation is more than 2,00 information about the above association area and it cannot be viewed as a valid permission for the reclamation without the consent of the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry for the above purpose and the above permission for the reclamation.

Therefore, pursuant to Article 2 and paragraph (3) of the Addenda to the Act on the Promotion of Agricultural and Fishing Villages Development (Act No. 393, Mar. 20, 198), since the above-mentioned permission-based cooperatives did not have the above-mentioned permission-based permission-based permission-based permission-related permission-related permission-related permission-related permission-related permission-related permission-related permission-related permission-related permission-related permission-related permission-related permission-related permission-related permission-related permission-related permission-related permission-related permission-related permission-related permission-related permission-related permission-related permission-related permission-related permission-related permission-related permission-related permission-related permission-related permission-related permission-related permission-related permission-related permission-related permission-related permission-related permission-related permission-related permission-related permission-related permission-related permission-related permission-related permission-related permission-related permission-related permission-related permission-related permission-related permission-related permission-related permission-related permission-related permission-related permission-related permission-related permission-related permission-related permission-related permission-related permission-related permission-related permission-related permission-related permission-related permission-related permission-related permission-related permission-related permission-related permission-related permission-related permission-related permission-related permission-related permission--related permission-related permission-related permission-related permission----related permission-related permission-related permission--related permission-related permission-related permission-

The plaintiff's attorney, next, held that even if the above reclamation permission and the authorization for completion are illegal for the above reasons, more than 10 years have passed since the above reclamation permission and the above reclamation permission were taken place, and the defendant's disposition of cancellation of this case was made by investing more than the money that the plaintiff purchased as farmland, which led to a result of not only the public trust of the state, but also the damage suffered by the plaintiff due to the above disposition cannot be compensated by the state. Therefore, since the disposition of cancellation of this case is against the public interest, it is against the principle of discretionary authority and abuse. However, as seen above, in this case where the above reclamation permission and the authorization for completion were issued a disposition of this case on the ground that the above reclamation permission and the authorization for completion are significant and obvious, the damage suffered by the plaintiff cannot be deemed to violate the public interest due to the disposition of this case as alleged by other remedy methods, and contrary to the plaintiff's attorney's assertion that the above disposition of cancellation of this case cannot be viewed as a deviation or abuse of discretionary power as alleged by the plaintiff's attorney.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case based on the premise that the cancellation disposition of this case is illegal is without merit, and it is dismissed, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jong-sung (Presiding Judge) and Kim Jong-chul