(영문) 서울행정법원 2003. 10. 17. 선고 2001구51141 판결

The defendant's decision on urban planning facilities as the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Public Notice No. 2001-312 of September 22, 2001 shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Details of the instant disposition

Grounds for Recognition: Facts without dispute, A1, 2, 3, A12-1, 14-1 through 5, A20-1, 2, 3, 1, 2-2, 3-1, 2, 3-4, 5-1 through 6, 5-1, 2, 5-1, 5-2, 10-1, 2, and 10-1, 2, and 10-1, 2, and 10-2, respectively.

A. On November 1998, the defendant decided that the capacity of the wall board, which is a memorial facility in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, has reached the limitation, and started the establishment of a candidate site and a master plan for the memorial park in order to cope with the citizens' demand for cremation. Since then, the defendant selected 12 places in Gyeonggi-do and 13 places in Seoul Special Metropolitan City as a candidate site for the memorial park on June 1999 through a basic investigation for the selection of candidate sites after organizing an exclusive team, and designated 12 places in Gyeonggi-do and 13 places in Seoul Special Metropolitan City as a candidate site for the memorial park. The memorial park was built in Gyeonggi-do area as much as possible.

B. Since then, SK corporation submitted its intent to build and donate memorial parks to Seoul Special Metropolitan City according to the maintenance of the senior president, it was satisfied on August 4, 200, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Council for the Korean Burial and Cultural Reforming Crime, and SK corporation established the Memorial Park Construction Promotion Council (hereinafter “the Council of this case”). On August 4, 200, the Council of this case examined the 13 candidates in Seoul area, recommended the Seoul Special Metropolitan City to recommend the proper candidates, and the SK corporation made a donation to Seoul Special Metropolitan City by constructing funeral facilities, such as a memorial hall and memorial house, and the Seoul Special Metropolitan City agreed to operate the funeral facilities.

C. The council of this case constituted a site selection review committee and examined 18 detailed items on the 13 candidates in Seoul area, including accessibility to the 13 candidates in the surrounding areas, conditions of surrounding areas, environmental impact on the environment, utility of land, economic feasibility, and impact on natural disasters. In the process of the review, a public hearing was held three times to gather opinions from the candidates, and on July 5, 2001, the council recommended the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Seocho-dong area first and second order in order to gather opinions from the candidates.

D. The Seoul Metropolitan Government, upon making on-site answers and field examinations on the candidate site for the memorial park recommended by the council of this case, selected 76 days (open-dong, Seocho-gu, Seoul as the site for the memorial park in Seocho-gu, Seoul, which was recommended by the council of this case in the first order, considering the fact that it is necessary to get a board and a memorial house on the south side of the dong, which is the direction of the chilling line, since there is a house of the Simwon and the memorial hall on the northwest side of the Seoul Metropolitan Government.

E. Accordingly, the defendant, after deliberation by the Seoul Metropolitan City Urban Planning Committee on September 2, 2001, pursuant to Article 2001-312 of the Seoul Metropolitan Government Public Notice, decided to install a cemetery park (a memorial house of 50,000 square meters) on September 2, 2001, and a crematorium (a cremation house of 50,00 square meters) on September 39, 200 square meters in Seocho-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Seocho-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and a cremation (a cremation house of 20,000 square meters, funeral hall 12, cemetery park and crematorium facility, and a crematorium facility of 15,00 square meters in width (hereinafter “instant memorial park”). The defendant changed the existing width of 380 meters to 380 meters (Class 1) and newly established an urban planning facility of 370 meters in width among 11 and 14,00 square meters (hereinafter “instant public notice”).

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

The defendant asserts that there is no legal interest in seeking revocation of the determination of the urban planning facilities of this case, not directly and specifically, but merely an indirect, factual, and economic interest with respect to the determination of the urban planning facilities of this case. The defendant asserts that there is no legal interest in seeking revocation of the determination of the urban planning facilities of this case. The plaintiffs asserted that there is a legal interest in seeking revocation of the determination of the urban planning facilities of this case, since it is apparent that there is a legal interest in seeking revocation of the determination of the urban planning facilities of this case by a national who has the right to live in a pleasant environment pursuant to the Constitution and laws and regulations of the Republic of Korea who has the right to pursue happiness while engaging in his livelihood and has the right to pursue happiness

Since the mother Park project in this case is a project related to funeral and graveyard traffic impact assessment, and it constitutes a project subject to traffic impact assessment pursuant to Article 4(1)14 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Assessment of Impacts of Works on Environment, Traffic, Disasters, Etc., Article 2(1)21 of the same Act, and the Act on Assessment of Impacts of Works on Environment, Traffic, Disasters, etc. as well as the Act on Assessment of Impacts of Works on Environment, Traffic, Disasters, etc., shall be the basis for the determination of the above project. The Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City, etc. shall investigate or measure necessary matters concerning the formulation of the relevant urban planning among matters prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as population, economy, society, culture, environment, use of land, etc., which are expected to be reflected in the relevant urban planning plan, and if such opinion is deemed reasonable, he/she shall have the head of the relevant central administrative agency prepare and submit the traffic impact assessment report and its opinion on the project subject to traffic impact assessment, including the traffic impact assessment report and its opinion on the project under Article 28(1).

However, there is no dispute between the parties as to the facts that Plaintiffs 1, 3 through 14, 16, 18, 20, and 26 are residents of the area subject to traffic impact assessment of the memorial park project in this case. Accordingly, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Whether the Administrative Procedures Act is in violation

(1) The plaintiffs' assertion

On April 16, 2001, the defendant held a public hearing to select the site for the memorial park of this case on the 13 candidates located in Seoul Special Metropolitan City on April 26, 2001, the defendant admitted only the persons holding the right to attend the meeting among the residents in the candidate area to make it impossible for the general citizens or experts to attend the meeting. In the absence of any explanation on the selection process and reasons for the said 13 candidates, the resident representative has made the resident representative present his opinion only in favor of and opposition to the above 14 candidates, and the Seocho-gu resident did not attend the public hearing despite the request of the residents, and omitted the procedures for public announcement in the Official Gazette, Official Gazette, daily newspapers, etc. by no later than 14 days before the public hearing was held, and the alternative proposed in each candidate area was separated and installed, namely, the construction of the crematorium and charnel houses, the development of the non-permanent cemetery, etc. to the general hospitals, religious facilities, etc., and the establishment of the existing parks by autonomous autonomous Gu, which violates Article 2 subparag. 6, Article 38(1) and 4).

(2) Relevant statutes

[former Administrative Procedures Act (amended by Act No. 6839 of Dec. 30, 2002)]

Article 2 (Definitions) The definitions of terms used in this Act shall be as follows:

6. The term "public hearing" means the procedure by the administrative agencies of extensively collecting the opinions of parties and other persons with expert knowledge and experience regarding any administrative functions through open discussions, and the general public;

Article 38 (Holding of Public Hearing) (1) Where an administrative agency intends to hold a public hearing, it shall notify parties, etc. of the following matters 14 days prior to the public hearing, and shall widely notify such matters by means of public announcement in the Official Gazette, official gazette, daily

1. Title;

2. Date and place;

3. Main contents;

4. Matters pertaining to presenters;

5. Method of filing an application for announcement and the deadline for application;

6. Other necessary matters.

Article 39 (Presiding over of Public Hearing) (4) The presiding official of a public hearing shall allow questions and answers among presenters after the presentation of presenters, and shall provide the audience with the opportunity to present their opinions.

(5) When rendering dispositions, administrative agencies shall reflect the facts and opinions presented at the public hearing, if deemed that reasonable grounds exist.

(3) Determination

. On or after the opening of a public hearing of 1 to 24, 2, 9-1 to 10-1, 2, and 40-1 to 40-1 to 41-5, respectively, the residents representative of the Seocho-gu 1 to 20. On or after the opening of a public hearing of 1 to 20-1 to 4: The residents representative of 1 to 20-1 to 2, including the residents representative of the said 1 to 3-1 to 3-1 to 4, the head of the Seocho-gu 2 to 10-2 to 3-1 to 3-1 to 4, the resident representative of the said public hearing, including the head of the Si/Gun/Gu, and the head of the Si/Gun/Gu to 2-1 to 3-1 to 4: The representative of the residents representative of the said 2-1 to 3-1 to 25-2, including the head of the Si/Gun/Gu to 14-2, respectively.

(5) The public hearing of this case is not intended for the decision of the urban planning facilities of this case, but for the selection of the site for the memorial park of this case, which is its previous stage. It is merely intended to hear the opinions of the proposed residents in the Seoul Special Metropolitan City despite the absence of the procedure to do so. ② If only the limited number of applicants due to the spatial limitation of the place for the public hearing does not restrict the number of participants, it is likely that the residents in the specified candidate area would lose the opportunity to attend the public hearing because the residents in the other candidate area would not have been able to attend the public hearing. The public hearing of this case is not for the 13 candidate areas to adjust the number of the proposed applicants to attend the public hearing and to allow them to attend the public hearing, and it is not for the public hearing of this case to be held for 13 days prior to the opening of the public hearing, and it is not for the public hearing of this case to be held for 13 days prior to the opening of the public hearing.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' above assertion is without merit.

B. The act of recommending the site for the memorial park by the council of this case

(1) The plaintiffs' assertion

The act that the council of this case, which does not have any authority to select the site of the memorial park of this case, recommended the site of the memorial park of this case to Seoul Special Metropolitan City is null and void. Accordingly, the act of selecting the site of the memorial park of this case and the decision of the urban planning facility of this case is also null and void.

(2) Determination

According to the facts of recognition under Paragraph (1) above, it is not the council of this case but the defendant, and the defendant can receive expert assistance in selecting the site of the memorial park of this case. Thus, it cannot be said that there was any defect on the ground that it was recommended by the council of this case as the site for the memorial park of this case through an examination by the members of the committee for the selection of the site composed of experts from various circles of society related to the selection of the site. Thus, the plaintiffs' above assertion is without merit.

(1) The plaintiffs' assertion

Article 5 of the Funeral Services, etc. Act, Article 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that a Special Metropolitan City Mayor, a Metropolitan City Mayor, or a Do Governor shall establish a mid- and long-term plan for the supply and demand of cemeteries, crematoriums, and charnel facilities within his/her jurisdiction on a three-year basis. As such, the Defendant first formulated a mid- and long-term plan for the supply and demand of cemeteries, crematoriums, and charnel facilities within his/her jurisdiction, and based on such plan, installed cemeteries, crematoriums, and charnel facilities on the basis thereof. However, the Defendant erred in determining urban

(2) Relevant statutes

[ Funeral Services, etc.]

Article 5 (Establishment of Plan for Supply and Demand of Cemeteries, etc.) (1) The Special Metropolitan City Mayor, Metropolitan City Mayors, Do Governors (hereinafter referred to as the "Mayor/Do Governor") and the head of a Si/Gun/Gu (referring to the head of an autonomous Gu; hereinafter the same shall apply) shall formulate a mid- and long-term plan concerning the supply and demand of cemeteries, crematoriums, and charnel facilities

(2) Where deemed necessary due to local characteristics, a Mayor/Do Governor and the head of a Si/Gun/Gu may establish all or part of the plan under paragraph (1) jointly with another Mayor/Do Governor or the head of a Si/Gun/Gu.

[Enforcement Decree of the Funeral Services etc.]

Article 3 (Supply and Demand Plan for Cemeteries, etc.) (1) The Special Metropolitan City Mayor, Metropolitan City Mayors, and Do Governors (hereinafter referred to as "Mayor/Do Governor") shall establish a mid- and long-term plan for the supply and demand of cemeteries, crematoriums, and charnel facilities (hereinafter referred to as "City/Do graveyard supply and demand plan") within their jurisdiction on a three-year basis pursuant to Article 5 (1) of the Funeral Services, etc. Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), and the plan for supply and demand of City/Do cemeteries, etc. shall include

1. Matters concerning the annual number of children born, the deceased and their trend;

2. Matters concerning the number of each year, the number of visitors, the number of visitors, the number of visitors, and their trends;

3. Matters concerning the establishment and management of cemeteries, crematoriums, and charnel facilities;

4. Matters concerning the maintenance or expansion of existing cemeteries, crematoriums, and charnel facilities, and finances thereon;

5. Matters concerning the general investigation of cemeteries under Article 10 of the Act and the disposal of neglected graves under Article 24 of the Act;

(3) Determination

The provisions of the above Acts and subordinate statutes concerning funeral services, etc. are prescribed for the purpose of having the Special Metropolitan City Mayor, Metropolitan City Mayors, and Do Governors secure cemeteries, crematoriums, and charnel facilities within their jurisdiction, and do not provide for the purport that individual funeral facilities cannot be installed in a state where a mid- and long-term plan for the supply and demand of cemeteries, crematoriums, and charnel facilities has not been determined. Thus, the above plaintiffs' assertion

D. Whether the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Areas of Restricted Development (amended by Act No. 6655 of Feb. 4, 2002; hereinafter “former Act on Special Measures”) is violated

(1) The plaintiffs' assertion

㈎ 구 특별조치법 제10조 , 같은법시행령 제10 , 11 , 12조 에 의하면 개발제한구역을 관할하는 특별시장·광역시장 또는 도지사는 5년 단위로 개발제한구역관리계획을 수립하여 주민의견과 기초자치단체장의 의견을 듣고 지방도시계획위원회의 심의를 거쳐 건설교통부장관의 승인을 받은 후 이를 공고하여야 하며, 개발제한구역 내에서 도시계획시설을 설치하거나 연면적 3,000㎡의 건축물, 10,000㎡ 이상의 토지형질변경을 하고자 하는 경우에는 반드시 개발제한구역관리계획에 포함시키도록 하고 있으나, 피고는 170,020㎡(51,430평) 규모의 이 사건 추모공원의 설치를 도시계획으로 시행하면서 그 사전절차인 개발제한구역관리계획을 수립하지 아니하였다.

㈏ 구 특별조치법 제11조 에 의하면 개발제한구역 내에 이 사건 추모공원을 설치하려면 서초구청장의 행위허가를 받아야 하는데 피고는 이를 회피하고자 건설교통부장관에게 이 사건 추모공원의 부지에 설정되어 있던 개발제한구역의 지정을 해제하여 줄 것을 건의하였다.

㈐ 구 특별조치법 제3 , 4 , 6조 , 같은법시행령 제4 , 5조 에 의하면 개발제한구역의 지정, 해제에 관한 도시계획은 광역도시계획을 수립한 후 환경영향평가를 실시하고 주민 및 지방의회의 의견을 청취하여 입안하도록 되어 있는데 피고는 서초구 및 주민들의 의견을 청취하지도 않고 환경영향평가나 광역도시계획을 수립하는 등의 절차를 무시한 채 건설교통부장관에게 이 사건 추모공원의 부지에 대한 개발제한구역의 지정을 해제하여 줄 것을 건의하였다.

㈑ 건설교통부지침인 “집단취락 등의 개발제한구역해제를 위한 도시계획변경(안) 수립지침”상의 ‘시급한 지역현안사업’은 광역도시계획의 대상이어야 하므로 구 도시계획법 제12조 에 따라 2 이상의 특별시, 광역시, 도에 걸치는 지역현안사업이어야 하는데 이 사건 추모공원사업은 서울특별시 단독사업에 불과함에도 불구하고 위 ‘시급한 지역현안사업’에 해당한다는 이유로 이 사건 추모공원의 개발제한구역이 해제되었다.

(2) Relevant statutes

[former Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Areas of Restricted Development (amended by Act No. 6655 of Feb. 4, 2002)]

Article 3 (Designation, etc. of Development Restriction Zones) (1) The Minister of Construction and Transportation may designate development restriction zones and cancel such designation as urban planning where it is necessary to restrict urban development in order to prevent any disorderly expansion of cities and to preserve the natural environment surrounding cities in order to ensure a healthy living environment for urban citizens or where it is deemed necessary to restrict development of security cities at the request of

Article 4 (Formulation of Urban Planning for Designation, etc. of Development Restriction Zones) (1) Urban planning for designation and cancellation of development restriction zones (hereinafter referred to as "urban planning") shall be formulated by the Special Metropolitan City Mayor, Metropolitan City Mayor, or the head of a Si/Gun having jurisdiction over the relevant urban planning zones: Provided, That in cases related to a State plan, the Minister of Construction and Transportation may, directly or at the request of the head of the relevant central administrative agency, formulate an urban planning after hearing opinions of the competent Mayor/Do Governor and the head of a Si/Gun, and in cases involving a metropolitan plan under subparagraph 2 of Article 3 of the Urban Planning Act,

(2) The urban planning shall be devised in conformity with the basic urban planning under subparagraph 1 of Article 3 of the Urban Planning Act or the metropolitan planning under subparagraph 2 of Article 3 of the same Act.

Article 6 (Hearing Opinions of Residents and Local Councils) (1) When the Minister of Construction and Transportation, the Mayor/Do Governor, or the head of a Si/Gun formulates an urban planning under the provisions of Article 4, he shall hear opinions of residents, and when such opinions are deemed reasonable, they shall be reflected in the urban planning concerned: Provided, That this shall not apply to matters that require confidentiality for national defense (limited to those that are requested by the Minister of National Defense)

(2) The Minister of Construction and Transportation or the Do governor shall, when he intends to formulate an urban planning under the proviso to Article 4 (1), send a draft of the urban planning to the Special Metropolitan City Mayor, Metropolitan City Mayor, or the head of the Si

(3) The Special Metropolitan City Mayor, Metropolitan City Mayor, or the head of a Si/Gun in receipt of the draft urban planning under the provisions of paragraph (2) shall hear the opinions of residents on the draft urban planning within the specified period and submit the results to the Minister of Construction

(4) Matters necessary for hearing the opinions of residents under paragraph (1) shall be determined by Municipal Ordinance of the local government concerned according to the standards prescribed by Presidential Decree.

(5) When the Minister of Construction and Transportation, Mayors/Do Governors, or the heads of Sis/Guns intend to formulate urban planning, they shall hear opinions of the relevant local council on matters prescribed by Presidential Decree.

(6) The provisions of paragraphs (2) and (3) shall apply mutatis mutandis where the Minister of Construction and Transportation or the Governor hears the opinions of the local council under the provisions of paragraph (5). In such cases, the term "resident" shall be construed as "local council"

Article 10 (Formulation, etc. of Plan for Managing Development Restriction Zones) (1) The Special Metropolitan City Mayor, Metropolitan City Mayors, or Do Governors (hereinafter referred to as "Mayor/Do Governor") having jurisdiction over development restriction zones shall establish a plan for managing development restriction zones (hereinafter referred to as "management plan") including the following matters every five years to comprehensively manage development restriction zones and obtain approval

1. Objectives and basic direction of management of the development restriction zone;

2. Survey of actual conditions of development-restricted areas;

3. Land use and preservation for development restriction zones;

4. Installation of urban planning facilities (hereinafter referred to as the “urban planning facilities”) under subparagraph 7 of Article 3 of the Urban Planning Act in a development-restricted area;

5. Construction of buildings and alteration to the form and quality of land exceeding the size prescribed by the Presidential Decree;

6. Designation and consolidation of settlement areas under Article 14;

7. Resident support projects referred to in Article 15 (hereinafter referred to as the "resident support projects");

8. Raising and management of funds necessary for managing development restriction zones and resident support projects;

9. Other matters prescribed by the Presidential Decree for rational management of the development restriction zone.

(2) Where a Mayor/Do Governor intends to modify a management plan, he/she shall obtain approval from the Minister of Construction and Transportation: Provided, That the same shall not apply to any modification

(3) Where a development restriction zone extends over two or more Special Metropolitan Cities, Metropolitan Cities, and Dos (hereinafter referred to as "City/Do"), the relevant Mayors/Do Governors shall jointly formulate a management plan or determine a person who shall formulate a management plan through consultation. In such cases, when consultation has not been made, the Minister of Construction and Transportation shall designate a person who

(4) When a Mayor/Do Governor intends to formulate a management plan, he/she shall hear the opinions of the head of the relevant Si/Gun/Gu (referring to an autonomous Gu; hereinafter the same shall apply) in advance and undergo deliberation by the local urban planning committee under Article 85 of the Urban Planning

(5) Where the head of the relevant Si/Gun/Gu seeks to present his/her opinion on a management plan pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (4), he/she shall hear the opinions of residents in advance, as prescribed by Presidential Decree: Provided, That this shall not apply where

(6) When the Minister of Construction and Transportation intends to approve the formulation and alteration of a management plan under the provisions of paragraph (1) or (2), he shall consult with the head of related central administrative agency, and then undergo a deliberation by the Central Urban Planning Committee under Article 77 of the Urban Planning Act

(7) When a Mayor/Do Governor obtains approval for the formulation or alteration of a management plan pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (1) or (2), he/she shall make it available for public perusal after publishing such approval as prescribed by Presidential Decree.

(8) No Mayor/Do Governor nor the head of a Si/Gun/Gu shall violate a management plan in managing a development restriction zone, such as permission to construct buildings and structures, permission to change the form and quality of land, designation of a village district under Article 14, implementation of resident support projects, etc.

(9) Basic principles for formulating a management plan, standards for preparing plans and drawings for managing development restriction zones, and other matters necessary for formulating a management plan shall be determined by the Minister of Construction and Transportation.

Article 11 (Restriction on Acts within Development Restriction Zones) (1) No person may construct a building in violation of the purpose of designation, change the purpose of use, install a structure, change the form and quality of land, cut bamboo and trees, divide land, stockpile articles, carry out an urban planning project under subparagraph 13 of Article 3 of the Urban Planning Act (hereinafter referred to as the “urban planning project”): Provided, That any person who intends to perform an act falling under any of the following subparagraphs may do it with permission of the head of Si/Gun/Gu:

1. Construction of buildings or installation of installations which fall under any of the following items and are prescribed by the Presidential Decree, and the resulting alteration of the form and quality of lands:

(a) Public facilities, such as roads, railroads, water supply and sewerage systems;

(b) Structures and installations used for the business of agriculture, forestry and fisheries, such as cattle sheds and warehouses;

(d) Facilities used jointly by residents in a development restriction zone, such as farming roads, banks, and village halls;

(e) Outdoor sports facilities;

(f) Facilities for leisure of urban citizens, such as recreational forests and arboretums;

(g) National defense and military facilities;

(h) Public interest facilities, including schools, waste disposal facilities, and electricity supply facilities;

2. Buildings in development-restricted areas, which are relocated to village districts designated under Article 14;

3. Creation of complexes to remove and reduce buildings removed due to the execution of public works under Article 3 of the Land Expropriation Act (limited to the public works executed within the development-restricted areas);

4. Alteration of the form and quality of land for the purpose of farming or other reasons prescribed by the Presidential Decree that does not result in construction of any building;

5. Felling of bamboo and trees in excess of the size as determined by the Presidential Decree;

6. Dividing land within the scope prescribed by the Presidential Decree; and

7. Piling up articles prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as sand, gravel, earth and rocks, etc. for a period prescribed by Presidential Decree.

8. An act of altering the purpose of use of buildings prescribed by Presidential Decree, from among buildings under subparagraph 1 or Article 12 for the purposes prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as neighborhood living facilities.

[Enforcement Decree of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones]

Article 4 (Hearing Opinions of Residents when Formulating Urban Planning) (1) When the Minister of Construction and Transportation, the Special Metropolitan City Mayor, the Metropolitan City Mayor, the Metropolitan City Mayor, or the head of a Si/Gun intends to hear the opinions of residents with respect to the formulation of urban planning under the provisions of the main sentence of Article 6 (1) of the Act, he/she shall announce the major contents of the urban planning in two or more daily newspapers mainly circulated in the Special Metropolitan City, the Metropolitan City, the Si

(2) A person who has an opinion on the contents of the urban planning publicly announced and publicly announced pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (1) may submit a written opinion to the Special Metropolitan City Mayor, Metropolitan City Mayor, or head of Si/Gun

(3) The Minister of Construction and Transportation, the Special Metropolitan City Mayor, the Metropolitan City Mayor, the head of Si, or the head of Gun shall examine whether to reflect the opinions submitted under paragraph (2) in the urban planning within 60 days from the date the public inspection date expires, and shall notify the person who submitted

(4) Where the Minister of Construction and Transportation, the Special Metropolitan City Mayor, the Metropolitan City Mayor, the head of a Si, or the head of a Gun intends to reflect the opinions submitted under paragraph (2) in the urban planning, if the contents thereof are important matters prescribed by the Ordinance on Urban Planning of the relevant local government (hereinafter referred to as the "Ordinance on Urban Planning"), he/she shall re-public

(5) The provisions of paragraphs (1) through (3) shall apply mutatis mutandis to the second public announcement and public inspection under paragraph (4).

(6) The term “minor matters prescribed by the Presidential Decree” in the proviso of Article 6 (1) of the Act means any modified determination in order to correct the error in calculating the area in the contents of urban planning.

Article 5 (Hearing of Opinions of Local Councils for Formulation of Urban Planning) The term “matters as prescribed by the Presidential Decree” in Article 6 (5) of the Act means matters concerning the designation and cancellation of development-restricted areas: Provided, That minor matters referred to in Article 4 (6) shall be excluded.

Article 10 (Contents, etc. of Plan for Managing Development Restriction Zones) (1) The term “construction exceeding the scale prescribed by the Presidential Decree or alteration of the form and quality of land” in Article 10 (1) 5 of the Act means construction or alteration of the form and quality of land

1. Construction of a building with a total floor area of at least 3,00 square meters (where construction is partially conducted over several occasions for the same purpose, referring to the total area thereof);

2. Change to the form and quality of land (including collection of earth and rocks; hereinafter the same shall apply) of at least 10,00 square meters (where the form and quality are altered on several occasions for the same purpose partially, referring to the total area)

(2) "Matters prescribed by Presidential Decree" in Article 10 (1) 9 of the Act means the following matters:

1. Management of areas subjected to cancellation of a development restriction zone pursuant to a basic urban planning or metropolitan planning under the Urban Planning Act;

2. Environmental improvement, such as collection of abandoned wastes, restoration of a damaged environment, etc.;

3. Computerization of management of development restriction zones;

4. Installation and management of stone stones as determined by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation in order to mark the boundaries of development restriction zones;

5. Other matters determined by the Minister of Construction and Transportation for rational management of development restriction zones.

(3) Where the matters to be included in a management plan for development restriction zones (hereinafter referred to as "management plan") under Article 10 of the Act are related to the provisions of other Acts and subordinate statutes, they may be utilized in establishing such management plan.

(4) "Minor matters prescribed by Presidential Decree" in the proviso to Article 10 (2) of the Act means the following matters:

1. Modification of a plan for surveying the current status and actual conditions of development restriction zones;

2. Reducing the total floor area of buildings or changing the form and quality of land, or increasing not more than 1/10 of the total floor area of urban planning facilities under the provisions of Article 10 (1) 4 of the Act (hereinafter referred to as the "urban planning facilities") or the matters pursuant to the provisions of Article 10 (1) 5 of the Act;

3. Change of the course and width of the linear facilities, such as roads, railroads, tracks, common utility conduits, water supply pipes, drainage conduits, power transmission lines, gas pipes, etc., from among the urban planning facilities;

4. Change of the location of land subject to the alteration of urban planning facilities, buildings or land form and quality in the same Eup/Myeon/Dong;

5. Other matters similar to subparagraphs 1 through 4, as determined by the Minister of Construction and Transportation.

(5) The Special Metropolitan City Mayor, Metropolitan City Mayors, or Do Governors (hereinafter referred to as "Mayor/Do Governor") shall, when there is any minor modification to the management plan under paragraph (4), notify the Minister of Construction and Transportation of such modification without delay.

Article 11 (Hearing Opinions of Residents when Formulating Management Plans) (1) The head of a Si/Gun/Gu (referring to the head of an autonomous Gu; hereinafter the same shall apply) shall, when he/she intends to hear the opinions of residents with respect to the formulation of Management Plans pursuant to the main sentence of Article 10 (5) of the Act, publicly announce the major contents of the Management Plans in two or more daily newspapers mainly circulated in the area of the relevant Si/Gun/Gu, and make it available for public perusal for 14

(2) A person who has an opinion on the details of a management plan publicly announced and publicly announced pursuant to paragraph (1) may submit a written opinion to the head of a Si/Gun/Gu within the period of public inspection.

(3) When the head of a Si/Gun/Gu submits opinions on a draft management plan to the Mayor/Do Governor, he/she shall also submit a summary of the opinions of residents

Article 12 (Public Notice, etc. of Management Plans) (1) When a Mayor/Do Governor publicly announces approval of a management plan pursuant to Article 10 (7) of the Act, he/she shall publish the following matters in the official gazette of the relevant local government, and post them on the bulletin board of the competent Si/Gun/Gu (limited to the autonomous Gu; hereinafter the same shall apply)

1. Date of approval;

2. Main contents of the management plan;

3. Place of inspection.

4. Inspection period.

(2) A Mayor/Do Governor shall send a copy of the management plan and approved documents, and the management plan books and drawings to the Si/Gun/Gu so that the general public can peruse them.

(3) When the head of a Si/Gun/Gu receives documents, etc. forwarded pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (2), he/she shall make them available for public perusal for at least 14 days.

(3) Determination

The term "urban planning facilities included in a development-restricted zone management plan under Article 10 of the former Act refers to urban infrastructure which is determined by urban planning under Article 24 of the former Urban Planning Act among urban infrastructure. Thus, in order to determine urban planning facilities to install urban planning facilities within a development-restricted zone, a development-restricted zone management plan under Article 10 of the former Act on Special Measures cannot be established in advance. Even if the defendant did not yet establish a development-restricted zone management plan for the instant memorial park, it cannot be said that the decision of urban planning facilities of this case was unlawful, and all other arguments of the plaintiffs are related to the cancellation of development-restricted zone and urban planning for the land of the instant memorial park. Since this is different from the decision of urban planning facilities of this case, the decision of urban planning facilities of this case cannot be said to be unlawful even if there are defects as asserted by the plaintiffs regarding the cancellation of development-restricted zone of the land of this case and the urban planning as to the urban planning facilities of this case.

(e) Whether the Urban Park Act is violated;

(1) The plaintiffs' assertion

Article 3 of the Urban Park Act provides that a cemetery park is a park built by mixing a cemetery with a park facility under the Act on Funeral Services, Etc., and according to Article 6(1)6 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, a cemetery park is located only with a funeral hall, a charnel house, or a funeral hall. As a result, it is impossible for the defendant to concurrently install a cremation, a charnel house, or a funeral hall, the defendant has determined that both urban planning facilities are separated and installed in the form by planning to place a crematorium, a charnel house, or a funeral hall in the same area. As such, the determination of urban planning facilities in this case is unlawful as it deviates from Article 3 of the Urban Park Act and Article 6(1)6 of the Enforcement Rule

(2) Relevant statutes

[Urban Park Act]

Article 3 (Subdivision of Urban Parks) Urban parks shall be subdivided according to their functions as follows:

4. Cemetery parks; and

A park built in combination with a cemetery and park facilities pursuant to the provisions of Article 2 (5) of the Burial and Graveyard, etc. Act within a certain zone in order to provide relaxation, etc. to graveyard users.

【Enforcement Rule of the Urban Park Act】

Article 6 (Standards for Installation of Park Facilities) (1) Park facilities shall be built in order to enable them to function as urban parks on such terms and conditions as the following subparagraphs may determine:

6. Park facilities that can be installed in a cemetery park shall be a funeral hall and a charnel house among landscaping facilities, recreational facilities, convenience facilities, and other facilities necessary for cemetery users, and shall be installed to the extent that it does not disturb the atmosphere of well-being;

(3) Determination

According to the above facts, the determination of the urban planning facilities of this case is divided into a 50,00 square meters 76,320 square meters in Seocho-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seoul, and a crematorium of 20,00 square meters in the size of cremation and a 12,00 square meters in the 68,700 square meters in Seocho-gu, Seocho-gu, Seoul, Seoul, and a crematorium of 20,000 square meters in the 68,00 square meters in the 39,70 square meters in the 25, and in full view of the purport of the oral argument in Eul 25, the instant memorial park of this case is divided into a funeral facility area, a memorial and funeral hall area in each cemetery facility area, a memorial facility area in the memorial facility area, a memorial facility area in the memorial facility area, and a park facility area in each park facility. Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion that the above facilities of this case can not be deemed to be a park facility and a 12,000 square meters in the above area.

F. Whether the Urban Planning Act is in violation

(1) The plaintiffs' assertion

㈎ 구 도시계획법 제6 , 10 , 19 , 21 , 22조 , 서울특별시도시계획조례 제3조 제3항 위반

According to Articles 6(1), 10(1), and 19(1) of the former Urban Planning Act and Article 3(3) of the Seoul Metropolitan Government Ordinance on Urban Planning, the Mayor shall establish a basic urban planning with respect to his jurisdictional area; when formulating or modifying the basic urban planning, the Mayor shall obtain approval from the Minister of Construction and Transportation; after reviewing the feasibility of the basic urban planning every five years, it shall be reflected in the basic urban planning; and the urban planning and other plans on the development and management of the city established by the Mayor shall comply with the basic urban planning of the Seoul Metropolitan City; however, although the creation plan of the relevant memorial park was not included in the basic urban planning of the Seoul Metropolitan City;

㈏ 구 도시계획법 제19조 제2항 , 제21조 위반

According to Articles 19(2), 21, and 24 of the former Urban Planning Act, when the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor formulates an urban planning, he/she shall prepare an urban planning document and a specification of plan, investigate or measure matters necessary for the formulation of the urban planning, and consult in advance with the head of the relevant central administrative agency to determine the urban planning. The defendant prepared the urban planning document and a specification of plan, and made a public announcement of the determination of urban planning facilities on August 10, 201 without conducting a basic survey, without conducting an environmental review.

㈐ 구 도시계획법 제22조 위반

The head of Seocho-gu submitted his opinion to the defendant on September 8, 2001, but the defendant, without the Seocho-gu's opinion, listened to the opinion of the Seoul Metropolitan Government Urban Planning Committee on September 7, 2001, listened to the opinion of the Seoul Metropolitan Council on September 13, 2001, and the Seoul Metropolitan Council has pointed out various problems in constructing the memorial park of this case at the time of the Seoul Metropolitan Council, but there were errors to have the decision of the urban planning facilities of this case passed on the original plan without any objection or examination.

(2) Relevant statutes

[former Urban Planning Act [Article 655, Feb. 4, 2002 (repealed by Act No. 6655, Jan. 1, 2003; hereinafter the same)]

Article 6 (Authority to Formulate Basic Urban Planning and Area to be Established) (1) The Special Metropolitan City Mayor, Metropolitan City Mayors, or the Mayor shall formulate a basic urban planning for his/her jurisdiction: Provided, That this shall not apply to cases where a metropolitan planning

Article 8 (Basic Survey for Establishment of Basic Urban Planning) (1) When the Special Metropolitan City Mayor, Metropolitan City Mayor, head of Si or Gun intends to formulate the basic urban planning, he/she shall investigate or survey in advance matters necessary for the formulation of the relevant basic urban planning among the population, economy, society, culture, traffic, environment, land use and other matters prescribed by Presidential Decree, as prescribed by

(2) The Special Metropolitan City Mayor, Metropolitan City Mayors, or the head of a Si/Gun shall investigate and analyze the population, economy, society, culture, traffic, environment, land use, and other matters prescribed by Presidential Decree with respect to an area for which a basic urban plan has been established, and report

Article 10 (Approval of Basic Urban Planning) (1) When the Special Metropolitan City Mayor, Metropolitan City Mayor, or head of Si/Gun formulates a basic urban planning, he/she shall obtain approval from the Minister of Construction and Transportation. The same shall apply

(4) The Minister of Construction and Transportation shall, when he approves a basic urban planning, forward the relevant documents to the head of the relevant central administrative agency, the Special Metropolitan City Mayor, Metropolitan City Mayor, or the head of the relevant Si/Gun, and the Special Metropolitan City Mayor, Metropolitan City Mayor, or the head

(5) The Special Metropolitan City Mayor, Metropolitan City Mayors, or the head of a Si/Gun shall examine the appropriateness of a basic urban planning every five years and reflect it in the basic urban planning.

Article 19 (Drafting of Urban Planning) (1) The urban planning shall conform to the basic urban planning or the metropolitan planning.

(2) When the Minister of Construction and Transportation, the Mayor/Do Governor, or the head of a Si/Gun formulates an urban planning, he/she shall prepare an urban planning book (referring to the planning map and the planning protocol; hereinafter the same shall apply) and a plan explanatory statement assisting such plan (including the results of basic surveys, fund raising plans, environmental review results

(3) Standards and methods for preparing urban planning books and specifications shall be determined by the Minister of Construction and Transportation.

Article 21 (Basic Survey for Preparation of Urban Planning)

Article 22 (Hearing Opinions of Residents and Local Councils) (1) The Minister of Construction and Transportation, Mayors/Do Governors, or the heads of Sis/Guns shall hear opinions of residents when formulating urban planning under the provisions of Article 19, and shall reflect such opinions in the urban planning when deemed reasonable: Provided, That this shall not apply to matters requiring confidentiality for national defense (limited to those requested by the Minister of National Defense) or insignificant matters prescribed by the Presidential Decree.

(2) The Minister of Construction and Transportation or the Do governor shall, when he intends to formulate an urban planning under the proviso to Article 18 (1), send a draft of the urban planning to the Special Metropolitan City Mayor, Metropolitan City Mayor, or the head of the Si

Article 24 (Determination of Urban Planning) (1) When a Mayor/Do Governor intends to determine urban planning, he shall consult with the head of the relevant administrative agency in advance, and the Minister of Construction and Transportation shall consult with the head of the relevant central administrative agency in advance. In such cases, the head of the agency in receipt of the request for consultation shall present

(2) When the Mayor/Do governor intends to determine or alter the urban planning as determined by the Presidential Decree on the urban planning formulated and determined by the Minister of Construction and Transportation under the proviso of Article 18 (1), he shall consult in advance with the Minister

(3) The Minister of Construction and Transportation or a Mayor/Do Governor shall, when he intends to determine an urban planning, undergo deliberation by the Central Urban Planning Committee or the Urban Planning Committee established in the City/Do under Article 85: Provided, That when he intends to determine a district-unit plan containing matters falling under Article 43 (1) 4 or 5, he shall hear in advance the opinions of the Building Committee established in the relevant Mayor/Do Governor under Article 4 of the Building Act as prescribed by Presidential Decree

(6) When the Minister of Construction and Transportation or the Mayor/Do governor has determined an urban planning, he shall publicly notify the determination as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, and make the relevant documents available for public perusal. In this case, the Minister of Construction and Transportation or the Governor shall send the relevant documents to the Special Metropolitan City Mayor, Metropolitan City Mayor, or head of Si/Gun for the urban

[Seoul Metropolitan Government Ordinance on Urban Planning]

Article 3 (Establishment of Basic Urban Planning) (1) The Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter referred to as the "Mayor") shall formulate a basic urban planning for the jurisdictional area under Article 6 (1) of the Act.

(2) The head of a Si may require the head of the Gu to submit a plan within his/her jurisdiction in relation to the formulation of basic urban planning.

(3) An urban planning and other urban development and management plan formulated by the Mayor shall conform to the basic urban planning of Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter referred to as "basic urban planning").

(3) Determination

㈎ 도시기본계획이라 함은 도시의 기본적인 공간구조와 장기발전방향을 제시하는 종합계획으로서 도시계획수립의 지침이 되는 계획을 말하고( 구 도시계획법 제3조 제1호 ), 도시기본계획은 도시의 특성·지표 및 계획목표에 관한 사항 등에 대한 정책방향 정하는 것을 그 내용으로 하는 것이므로( 구 도시계획법 제7조 제1항 ), 개별적인 도시계획시설의 결정에 관한 사항까지 구체적으로 명시하고 있지 않다. 따라서 이 사건 추모공원 조성계획이 서울특별시 도시기본계획에 명시되어 있지 않다고 하더라도 이 사건 추모공원의 조성이 서울특별시 도시기본계획상의 정책방향에 어긋나지 아니하는 한 어떠한 위법이 있다고 할 수 없다.

㈏ 갑14의 1, 2, 3, 을22, 25 내지 30의 각 기재에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면, 피고는 이 사건 추모공원을 도시계획시설로 결정하기 위하여 이 사건 추모공원의 주변 토지이용현황, 대상지 및 주변 취락현황, 교통 및 접근체계현황 등 인문·사회환경과 지형, 지질, 수로, 경관 및 생태환경 등 자연환경 등을 조사하고, 이 사건 추모공원에 대한 도시계획시설결정(변경)조서 및 지형도면과 이를 보조하는 이 사건 추모공원 기본계획서, 교통영향평가서, 환경성 검토서를 작성한 사실을 인정할 수 있다.

㈐ 갑12의 1, 2, 갑13의 1, 2, 3, 갑15의 1, 2, 갑16의 1, 2, 3의 각 기재에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면, 피고는 2001. 8. 10. 이 사건 추모공원을 도시계획시설로 결정하는 도시계획(안)을 공람공고한 사실, 이에 대하여 서초구 주민들이 2001. 8. 24. 피고에게 이 사건 도시계획시설결정(안) 공람공고에 대한 이의신청 의견서를 제출하였고, 서초구는 서초구 주민들의 의견들을 청취하여 2001. 9. 8. 피고에게 이 사건 도시계획시설결정(안) 공람공고에 대한 의견서를 제출한 사실, 피고는 이와는 별도로 서초구 주민 56,827명을 상대로 이 사건 도시계획시설결정(안) 공람공고에 대한 의견을 청취하였고, 이 사건 도시계획시설결정(안)에 대하여 서울특별시 도시계획위원회의 심의를 거친 후 서울특별시의회의 의견을 청취한 사실을 인정할 수 있다.

According to Article 22 (1) and (5) of the former Urban Planning Act, the Mayor/Do Governor, the Mayor/Do Governor, or the head of a Gun only stipulates that the opinions of the residents and the opinions of the local councils shall be heard when formulating an urban planning, so it does not necessarily require the opinions of the local councils to be attached to the opinions of the local council, but does not necessarily require the opinions of the local council when considering the opinions of the local council. Thus, the opinions of the residents should be reflected only in the determination of the urban planning facilities of this case, and it cannot be said that there is a defect in the determination of the urban planning facilities of this case solely on the ground that the opinions of

Therefore, the plaintiffs' above arguments are without merit.

G. Whether the principle of no-competence and the principle of no-competence are violated

(1) The plaintiffs' assertion

On June 20, 2001, Seocho-gu submitted to the Defendant an urban planning plan to build a 21,140 square meters of a youth training facility, which is merely 12.4% of the size of the memorial park of this case, within the site of the memorial park of this case. At that time, the Defendant’s decision to create the memorial park of this case, which lasts ten times the size of the youth training facility at the same place without any grounds or reasons without explanation, is contrary to the principle of gold speech and the principle of protection of trust.

(2) Facts of recognition

In full view of the purport of each statement of Gap 1 to 12, Gap 19-1 to 7, and Gap 20-1, Seocho-gu decided to build the Seocho-gu Youth Training Center on March 16, 2001 204, but it is necessary to minimize damage to forests and green belt and to review the location of the area with good accessibility as it is necessary to establish the Seocho-gu Urban Planning Committee on April 2001. It is also necessary to additionally review the establishment of the Seocho-gu Urban Planning Facility on the Seocho-gu 70-1, which is located within the site of the Seocho-gu Urban Park and notified the defendant of the plan to review the location of the Seocho-gu 20-1, which is to establish the Seocho-gu Urban Planning Committee on June 20, 201, and to prepare an alternative plan to review the location of the youth training facility in the Seocho-gu 20-1, which is ordinarily located within the area of the Seocho-gu Urban Planning Committee.

(3) Determination

Considering the above facts of recognition under paragraphs 1 and 3-A (3) above, Seocho-gu begins to hold a public hearing to select the site of the Seocho-gu Memorial Park, and the Seocho-gu 76 days' price originally decided to establish Seocho-gu 204 Seocho-dong 204 training center, which is the primary candidate for the Seocho-gu 76 day-dong, the Seocho-gu 70-1, which is an area included in Seocho-gu 76 day-dong 76 day-dong, and there is no reason to view that the defendant's construction of the Seocho-gu 70-dong 1's new park site was contrary to the Seocho-gu 70-dong 7's new park development project to build the Seocho-dong 7's new park site, which is the primary candidate for the Seocho-gu 70's new park development project, and there is no reason to view that it is against the Seocho-gu 7's new park site development project to create the above new park site.

H. Whether the scale of the crematorium facilities of this case is appropriate

(1) The plaintiffs' assertion

The population of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City residents has been changed to a regular point in 1994, and it shows a relatively stable trend in 1,000,000 after the late 190s. Accordingly, it seems that such trend will continue, barring any special circumstance, it would be possible to continue to exist unless 103 persons per day of death per day of death per day of death per day of 199, and 23 days of cremation are currently available for 69 cases of maximum number of treatment per day of 115 out of 105, the average number of cases of death per day of 1,005 and the total number of cases of 205 days of cremation per day of 1,000, and even if it is presumed that the cremation rate of 10% per day of 205, the average number of cases of cremation per day of 1,2005 shall not exceed 80, and even if the cremation rate is 100%, it can sufficiently meet the current demand for facilities.

In addition, the current status of the cremation in the Seoul Metropolitan Area is that the 15th period of cremation, 7th period of cremation to cremation, and 7th period of cremation in Incheon, and the 29th period of cremation is being operated for cremation, and currently, the utilization rate of the 50% in the case of gender-nam crematorium and veterinary crematorium is low.

However, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City predicted the demand for the daily average cremation treatment of 2005, 97, 2010, 119, and 142, 2015, and increased the demand for cremation by 39, 2005, 53, and 73, 2015, and the demand for cremation of this case should be newly established in the memorial park of this case. Accordingly, the decision on urban planning facilities of this case is inconsistent with the principle of excessive prohibition, or is a deviation or abuse of discretionary authority.

(2) Determination

According to Gap 21-3, 4, 12, 36, and 39-1 to 4, the average number of cremation time of 20: 0 per 2,00 per 1,00 per 4,00 per 2,00 per 1,00 per 2,00 per 10,000 per 2,00 per 1,000 per 2,000 per 1,00 per 3,00 per 1,000 per 1,00 per 4,00 per 2,000 per 1,00 per 2,000 per 3,00 per 1,00 per 3,00 per 1,00 per 4,00 per 1,00 per 2,00 per 3,00 per 1,00 per 1,00 per 3,00 per 1,00 per 199.

If it is assumed that the working hours of a crematorium are eight hours a day, the number of times required for cremation takes three times per corpse 2 hours and 2 hours and 30 minutes per corpse 1, and it is judged that the average number of times available per day is the most appropriate time for cremation in order to hold a funeral in a more early and strict atmosphere according to traditional funeral customs, and that it is most appropriate to run once a day and twice a day each time in accordance with the standards for the number of times used for cremation in the above [Attachment Table 3] and the preliminary cremation for inspection (10 days per cremation) and the preliminary cremation for cremation (201 through 2010: 1, 201, and 2020: 20) in addition to the number of times used for cremation in the above [Attachment Table 4] in addition to the demand for cremation from 201 to 2020.

As seen above, as the expected demand of cremation considerably exceeds the size of the wall cremation as at the time of the determination of the urban planning facilities of this case, the plaintiffs' above assertion is without merit.

(i) Traffic problems;

(1) The plaintiffs' assertion

The vicinity of the memorial park of this case is an area where the congested points of the traffic axis crossings by the king and Bridges are concentrated, and the level of surrounding traffic services is causing the F grade. One of the areas where distribution and logistics facilities, such as the horse, coconc, modern car, freight truck, freight terminal, grain wholesale market, etc. are growing, and in particular, it is not clear that the border road will be parking off with the vehicles of sexual graveyards and its visitors, and if the memorial park of this case is constructed, it will be clear that the passage of the Gyeong road will be frighten and lose the function of the main road.

In addition, the traffic impact assessment conducted by the Defendant is erroneous in determining that the Defendant is capable of sufficiently treating only one lane without considering the increase in the volume of weekends, since it is anticipated that the traffic volume in both directions of entry and exit of the road will be considered in assessing the impact of the daily traffic volume on the road, and that the number of visitors in the park and the trend will be concentrated on the weekends. In addition, even in the case of a specific day, such as the snow, Korean food, and stone, it is erroneous in estimatinging the concentration rate, the average number of visitors per year, etc.

(2) Facts of recognition

Grounds for Recognition: A14-1, 2, 3, 25, 28, 29, 30, and the whole purport of oral argument

㈎ 이 사건 추모공원 주변의 교통여건

① The surrounding roads of the memorial park of this case adjoining to the north by the line (breadth 30m, eight lanes) and the two sides (breadth 35 through 70m, eight through 12 lanes). On the east, the parallel road, which is the main line (breadth 30 through 50m, eight through 10 lanes), and the parallel road, which is the main line (breadth 30 through 50m, eight through 10 lanes), the parallel road, the Hunne road (breadth 50 to 70m, eight through 10 lanes), and the center for the distribution of agricultural and fishery products, etc. are located in the surrounding major facilities.

② The level of service at the parallel of the intersection (08:00 to 09.00 on a normal day) is to be expected to have the largest impact on the surrounding roads of the memorial park of this case, the level of service at the parallel of the intersection (08:0 to 09.00 on a normal day) is to be higher than the average stop area at 23.9 seconds, the average stop area at 9.3 seconds, the average stop area before the Korean cargo terminal, the F level at 9.3 seconds, the average stop area at 115.8 seconds, the average stop area at 115.8 seconds, and the average stop area at the parallel of two Jaei.C is to be higher than the d and F level (the service level is to be restricted by traffic, E is to stop between the two stop, access to road volume, and f: f.m.).

③ Meanwhile, in 2003, the passage of the rainic acid tunnel between Dorsan and Dorsan will be opened, and in 2009, the Gangnam Metropolitan Highway, linked to I.C, is scheduled to be opened at the upper part of the amrchere in the 2009.

④ The Seoul Special Metropolitan City, by means of the traffic improvement measures around the Sin Park in the case of this case, has set up a sidewalk in the intersection, minimize the hours of loss in the intersection, secure the left-hand turn from the dedicated road to the opposite direction due to the extension of the lue-based underground road, optimal the operation of the signal at the right-hand turn, and newly installing the lue light on the right-hand side from the lue Highway to the lue Road (lue I.C. 1.C. 1.C. 1.C. 1. C. 1. C. 2. 2.2. 2.2. 2. 2.2. 2. 3. 3. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1.

⑤ On March 21, 2002, in the traffic impact assessment following the creation of a memorial park in this case, it is judged that the impact of the surrounding intersection due to the instant memorial park development project would be insignificant if the road of the Dogsan tunnel and the river circulation city road is opened, and when implementing the above traffic improvement measures, it was analyzed that the delayed time of 0.4 seconds and 9.4 seconds per vehicle was reduced in 2009, and the assessment grade was judged 1 as a result of the calculation of the assessment grade in consideration of the degree of the project site, the traffic impact rating, and the traffic improvement rate.

㈏ 이 사건 추모공원 진입도로의 교통여건

① When creating the memorial park of this case, the main entrance road, which enters the memorial park of this case, is planned to be opened by extending the existing width of 11 through 25 meters to four-lanes from the width of 35 meters. The main entrance road of this case is planned to be opened by extending the passage of the road of 11 to 35 meters from the width. The passage to the funeral funeral place is planned to be opened as the main entrance road of the two-lanes from the width of 11 to 14 meters to the front and right from the park.

② As a result of traffic impact assessment following the creation of the memorial park in this case, the traffic volume of the instant memorial park project site was predicted as 5,774 units (2,887 units), 53 units/Si, 738 units (09:0 through 100), 5,738 units/Si, 508 units/Si, 508 units in 2009, 5,318 units/Si, 14:00 units (14:0 through 00), 69 units/Si, 5,238 units/Si, 682 units/Sis in 2005. Based on this, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City was predicted as 5,774 units (2,87 units), 5,238 units/Sis/Guns in 2005, 34 units/Siscis in 204, 348 units/Siscisscis in 2005.

(3) The volume of one vehicular traffic shall be 600 to 800 / 100.

(3) Determination

According to the above facts, if the traffic volume of one lane is considered, the traffic volume of access roads (two-lanes) to the apartment park of this case can sufficiently cope with the traffic volume on a daily and Sundays. If the traffic improvement measures are implemented according to the plan, it is difficult to view that the surrounding apartment park is created, and it is difficult to create the traffic problem due to the aggravation of the surrounding traffic condition.

However, according to the above evidence, the expected transport volume of the access road to the mother Park of this case during the additional time zone of the life-saving day is about three times the number of access roads to the mother Park of this case, and according to the transport improvement measures for the life-saving day, such as New Year's Day, Gyeong Jae-gu (298), Yang Jae-gu (54 pages), Yang Jae-gu's forests (1,136 pages), Yang Jae-gu's forests (1,136 pages), and school parking lots and school playgrounds (284 pages), adjacent to the Memorial Park of this case, are secured as temporary parking lots, and operation of the memorial park of this case and the shuttle bus of this case is likely to control the access access to private use of the mother Park of this case. If such plan is implemented properly, it is expected that the road of this case will be implemented without any access road of this case.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' above assertion is without merit.

(j) Environmental problems;

(1) The plaintiffs' assertion

The Cheong Accounting to be developed is one of the four major mountain areas in Seoul. The Cheong Accounting is a scenic place in Seoul, where 5 or 6 people are found in the nation, including Seoul citizens, and there is a small clean area within the south of Han River, which is a natural monument, and has high ecological conservation value where endangered trees live in the Gun. However, the Defendant recognized the site of the Mamo Park in this case as the first class of the environment and ecological conservation, and changed the site of the Mamo Park in this case to the fourth class of the Mamo Park in the first class, and the creation of the Mamo Park in this case would seriously damage the natural environment, such as the forest and ecology in the Cheong River accounting, if the Mamo Park in this case is created.

(2) Determination

In light of the purport of oral argument, Eul 22, Eul 23-1, 3, and Eul 24 through 27, it is necessary to establish a plan to minimize the environmental contamination of the site of the memorial park, and the urban natural park is located on the south and south of the site of the memorial park; the land of the memorial park is located on the north and the Korean cargo terminal; most of the site of the memorial park is composed of farmland with large greenhouse houses; the site of the memorial park is composed of 51,520 square meters around the site of the memorial park; the land of the memorial park is likely to develop an environmentally friendly landscape-oriented facility to minimize the environment-friendly landscape of the park; the land of the memorial park is likely to develop an environmentally friendly landscape-oriented facility at the site of the relevant memorial park; the land area of the memorial park is to be built at least 7,00 square meters away from the site of the relevant memorial park; the land area of the memorial park is to be built at least 51,720 square meters around the site of the relevant park;

According to the facts found above, since the site of the memorial park in this case is farmland most of the site of the memorial park in this case, even if the memorial park in this case is created, it is extremely insignificant to the extent of damaging the forest of Cheong Accounting, and the area of the facility of the memorial park in this case is designed to minimize the damaged area, and it is to be constructed as an environment-friendly park in harmony with the surrounding green areas, so most of the remaining areas of the memorial park in this case, it cannot be said that the surrounding landscape is damaged by the creation of the memorial park in this case. Since the cremation in this case is built in the memorial park in this case, it is the highest high-tech facility for the cremation in this case, and is installed with low noise, smoke, studio, pollution without pollution, and high-tech facilities, exhaust gas automatic measuring device, soundproof device, etc., it seems that the damage caused by air pollution and noise can be minimized. In light of the above circumstances, the result of the defendant's judgment that judged that the surrounding environment impact can be minimized due to the creation of the memorial park in this case

Therefore, it is difficult to view that the surrounding natural environment is excessively damaged due to the creation of the memorial park of this case, so the plaintiffs' above assertion is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the decision of the urban planning facilities of this case is lawful, so the plaintiffs' claim is dismissed as it is without merit.

[Attachment]

Judges Yu Nam-nam (Presiding Judge) Kim Yong-ok

심급 사건

서울행정법원 2003.10.17.선고 2001구51141

-서울고등법원 2005.1.26.선고 2003누19885

-대법원 2007.4.12.선고 2005두1893

본문참조조문

-개발제한구역의 지정 및 관리에 관한 특별조치법

-개발제한구역의지정및관리에관한특별조치법 제6조 제1항

-개발제한구역의지정및관리에관한특별조치법 제6조 제5항