[1] A person who can file a lawsuit with the Supreme Court against the decision of the local government to which the reclaimed land belongs (=head of the local government)

[2] Whether the Minister of Security and Public Administration should hear the opinions of the local council concerned when determining the local government to which the reclaimed land belongs (negative)

[3] Whether the Minister of Security and Public Administration may determine the local government to which land the reclamation work is not completed (negative)

[4] Matters to be considered in a case where a single plan establishes a whole reclamation project plan, and the determination of attribution of a part of the area where reclamation has been completed in a phased and successive manner by the project contents or district under the Gu’s agreement should be made first

[5] Whether the customary law effect of topographical map, which has been applied as the rule of jurisdictional decision such as reclaimed land, has been modified or restricted by the Local Autonomy Act amended on April 1, 2009 (affirmative), and the limitation of discretion of the Minister of Security and Public Administration when determining a local government to which reclaimed land belongs

[6] The scope of relevant benefits to be considered when determining a local government to which the reclaimed land belongs

[1] The Local Autonomy Act provides that the Minister of Security and Public Administration shall determine reclaimed land pursuant to the Public Waters Management and Reclamation Act (Article 4(3)), and the head of a relevant local government may file a lawsuit with the Supreme Court within 15 days from the date of notification of the result of the determination if an objection is raised to the determination (Article 4(8)). Accordingly, the head of the relevant local government is the head of the relevant local government and not the head of the relevant local government.

[2] According to Article 4(2), (3), and (7) of the Local Autonomy Act, the Minister of Security and Public Administration should determine the local government to which reclaimed land under the Public Waters Management and Reclamation Act belongs in accordance with the provisions and procedures under Article 4(4) through (7) of the Local Autonomy Act, and need not necessarily undergo the procedures for hearing the opinions of the local council concerned.

[3] According to Article 4(4) of the Local Autonomy Act and Article 45 of the Public Waters Management and Reclamation Act, the Minister of Security and Public Administration may determine the local government to which land the reclamation work has been completed before completion inspection, and the local government to which land the reclamation work has yet to be completed cannot be determined, although reclamation is planned.

[4] Since the whole reclamation project plan is established as a single plan and the whole plan is required to provide administrative support for the part of the reclamation project implemented in a phased and orderly manner by the project contents or district, the decision of jurisdiction over the part of the reclamation project can have considerable impact on the determination of the remaining area to be reclaimed. Therefore, even in cases where the decision of jurisdiction is made only for a certain area, it is reasonable to ensure that the decision of jurisdiction is made taking into account the framework of the overall area of the area to be reclaimed in consideration of the overall implementation plan of the reclamation project in question, the land use plan and purpose of the reclaimed area, the plan for the development and use of the harbor. If an inappropriate decision of jurisdiction is partially made in light of the overall district of jurisdiction, there is a risk that the overall plan for the reclamation project in question and the detailed land use plan of the reclaimed area will not be reflected in the whole plan for the reclamation project in question, and it is not desirable that the local government will increase social and economic expenses in terms of the nation and the local community, and it is not desirable that the entire area should be excluded from the jurisdiction of the whole area.

[5] In light of the contents, form, purport, and amendment process, etc. of relevant statutes, such as Article 4(3), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9) of the Local Autonomy Act, it is reasonable to view that the customary law effect of topographical map, which applied as the standard for maritime boundary on the topographical map prior to the amendment of the Local Autonomy Act by Act No. 9577 of Apr. 1, 2009, has been modified or restricted by the amendment of the above Local Autonomy Act. The Minister of Security and Public Administration, when determining a local government to which reclaimed land belongs, has considerable freedom of formation. However, in light of the fact that the competent authority has the nature of planning discretion, the above freedom of formation does not allow unlimited discretion, but it is limited to a comparison and comparison of various public interests, private interests, and interests of the relevant local government. Accordingly, if the interests are not paid at all or should be included in the scope of balancing or the benefits to be considered, the Minister of Security and Public Administration’s decision should be deemed unlawful, as it lacks legitimacy and objectivity.

[6] In light of the purport of the amendment of the Local Autonomy Act (Act No. 9577 of Apr. 1, 2009), the scope of benefits to be considered in determining a local government to which reclaimed land belongs shall generally include the following matters in light of the purpose of the amendment of the Local Autonomy Act (amended by Act No. 9577 of Apr. 1, 2009). ① In light of the detailed land use plan of each area within reclaimed land and the organic use relationship with neighboring areas, public waters should be determined so as to allow efficient use of new land by determining the competent area. ② Public waters should not be determined on the basis of the maritime boundary, but should be determined on the basis of the shape of the reclaimed land and the neighboring local government’s jurisdiction, connection, connection, and distance between the reclaimed land and the surrounding local government’s jurisdiction, and the location of natural geographical and artificial structures such as roads, rivers, canals, etc. which can be easily recognized as the boundary of the surrounding local government’s land use. (3) The economic benefits from the residents’ residential environment or residential infrastructure should not be considered.

[1] Article 4 (3) and (8) of the Local Autonomy Act / [2] Article 4 (2), (3), and (7) of the Local Autonomy Act / [3] Article 4 (4) of the Local Autonomy Act, Article 45 of the Public Waters Management and Reclamation Act / [4] Article 4 (4) of the Local Autonomy Act, Article 45 of the Public Waters Management and Reclamation Act / [5] Article 4 (3), (5), (6), (7), (8), and (9) of the Local Autonomy Act / [6] Article 4 (3) of the Local Autonomy Act

Kim Jong-si and three others (Law Firm LLC, Attorneys Lee Yong-woo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Minister of Security and Public Administration (Law Firm Corporation, Attorneys Park Sim-si et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Gunsan-si (Law Firm continental Aju, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

October 11, 2013

The lawsuits of the plaintiff Kim Jong-si and the father-gu are dismissed. The claims of the plaintiff Kim Jong-si and the father-head of the Gun are dismissed. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The decision that the Defendant determined the local government to which the portion of reclaimed land corresponding to the part on the ship connecting each point of the annexed Table 1, 2, 1, 5, 7 through 15, 6, 4, 3, 2, and 1, among the Saemangeum Sea Embankments section of Korea on November 17, 2011, shall be revoked as Dosan-si, Jeollabuk-do.

1. Details and summary of the decision of this case

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or acknowledged by Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 4, Eul evidence 5, Eul evidence 1-1, Eul evidence 9, and the whole purport of the pleadings.

(a) Application for determination of Saemangeum administrative districts by the Minister for Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries;

On December 209, the Minister of Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries completed the construction of tide embankments 3 (2.7km section connecting the Sinsido and the Ymido) and 4 of tide embankments (11.4km section connecting the Ymido and the Ymido), among Saemangeum Development Project, and on March 23, 2010, filed an application with the Defendant for a decision of the local government to which the reclaimed land belongs, in order to perform various administrative processing, such as construction completion of tide embankments, registration of cadastral records, registration and transfer of facilities, determination and announcement of road management areas.

At the time of the above application, the local government's decision to belong to the Saemangeum Area was presented as a first proposal to determine the administrative district around the Saemangeum Area. If it is impracticable to determine the first proposal, the second proposal to determine only the tide embankment for which the reclamation project is completed as preliminary, and the third proposal to determine only the tide embankment for which there is no objection among the relevant local governments.

The defendant posted the above application by the Minister for Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries on the defendant's website on March 29, 2010, and also posted it in the Official Gazette as of March 31, 2010.

(b) Deliberation and resolution by the Central Dispute Mediation Committee on Local Governments;

On September 9, 2010 and October 27, 2010, the Local Government Central Dispute Mediation Committee (hereinafter referred to as the "Committee") under the jurisdiction of the defendant was held to deliberate on the above application by the Minister for Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. The Prime Minister, the Ministry for Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, the Saemangeum Project Planning Group, the Governor of Jeollabuk-do, the relevant local government, the Governor of Jeollabuk-do, the Gunsan City, the Kim Jong-si, and the subordinate

On October 27, 2010, the Committee decided on October 27, 2010 that the local government to which the reclaimed land of this case belongs shall first determine the local government to which the reclaimed land of this case belongs, among the tide embankments for which reclamation was completed pursuant to the above No. 3 (including multifunctional sites) and No. 4 (hereinafter “the reclaimed land of this case”). In full view of the following circumstances, the Committee decided that the local government to which the reclaimed land of this case

① The reclaimed land of this case is a section constructed by linking the Yasido and the Yasido in the Yasido in the Yasido in the Yasido in the Yasido in the Yasido. 266 residents in the Yamido in the Yamido in the Yasido, and 135 residents living in the Yasido in the 138 residents

② Since the multi-functional site of the embankment No. 3, which is the area subject to the metiet development project, is the land that is developed by linking the new City/Do with the Yamido, it would enhance the efficiency of land utilization by establishing a land utilization plan and an urban planning in connection with the Gunsan as long as the administrative district of the new City/Do and Yamido is not changed to another local government (

③ Since the Gun and Do residents of the Gun and Do provide administrative services to the Gun and Do, it is possible to ensure the efficiency of administration to revert the surrounding reclaimed land to the Gun and Do, which is a local government having jurisdiction over the Gun and Do, to the Gun and Do (administrative efficiency).

④ Even according to the maritime boundary line on the topographical map published by the National Geographical Institute, the reclaimed land of this case is located within the jurisdiction of the Gunsan City (the historical aspect).

⑤ The Gunsan-si stated that the reclaimed land of this case should be determined under its jurisdiction, while Kim Jong-gun did not claim that the reclaimed land of this case should be determined under its jurisdiction, but only opposed to the determination of the reclaimed land of this case as to the whole Saemangeum area by concerns that the decision of the reclaimed land of this case will be linked to the decision of the local government of the whole Saemangeum area (the opinion of the relevant authorities).

C. The defendant's decision of this case

The defendant made the decision of this case as stated in the purport of the claim on November 17, 2010 in accordance with the above resolution of the committee, and notified the plaintiff Kim Jong-si and the vice-head of the Gun on the same day.

2. Whether the lawsuits of the plaintiff Kim Jong-si and the father-gu are legitimate

ex officio deemed.

Local Autonomy Act provides that local governments to which reclaimed land pursuant to the Public Waters Management and Reclamation Act (hereinafter “Public Waters Management Act”) belongs shall be determined by the Minister of Security and Security (Article 4(3)); and that the heads of relevant local governments may file a lawsuit with the Supreme Court within 15 days from the date of receipt of notification of the result if they have an objection to the determination (Article 4(8)).

Therefore, the subject who can file a lawsuit with the Supreme Court against the decision of the local government to which the reclaimed land belongs is not the head of the relevant local government, but the local government. Therefore, the lawsuit of this case by the Plaintiff Kim Jong-si, the subordinate local government is unlawful without standing to sue.

3. Determination as to the allegation of illegality in the procedure of the decision of this case

A. As to the assertion that the opinions of the relevant local council were not heard

The plaintiff Kim Jong-gu and the vice-head of the Gun (hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiffs") applied Article 4 (2) of the Local Autonomy Act even in cases where the local government to which the reclaimed land belongs is decided. Thus, the defendant asserts that the decision of this case was unlawful because the decision of this case was not followed by the procedure of hearing the opinions of the respective local councils of the Gunsan-si, Kim Jong-si, and the vice-head of the Gun.

The main sentence of Article 4(2) of the Local Autonomy Act provides that "in the case of abolition, establishment, division or consolidation of local governments pursuant to paragraph (1) or alteration of their names or jurisdictions, the opinion of the local councils of relevant local governments (hereinafter referred to as "local councils") shall be heard." Article 4(3) provides that "Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the local governments to which any of the following areas belong shall be determined by the Minister of Security and Public Administration pursuant to paragraphs (4) through (7)." Article 4(7) provides that "the chairperson of the Committee may, if deemed necessary in the course of deliberation pursuant to paragraph (6), have attendance of public officials of relevant central administrative agencies and local governments or relevant experts, hear their opinions or request them to submit data and opinions. In such cases, the head of the relevant local government shall give them an opportunity to state their opinions."

According to the above provisions, the Defendant’s determination of a local government to which reclaimed land under the Public Waters Management Act belongs pursuant to the provisions and procedures under Article 4(4) through (7) of the Local Autonomy Act, and there is no need to undergo the procedures for hearing the opinions of the relevant local council. The above Plaintiffs’ assertion on this part is without merit.

B. As to the assertion that the decision was made in excess of the motion

Although the above plaintiffs did not include the multifunctional site of this case subject to the application by the Minister for Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, the defendant's decision of this case was unlawful since the local government to which the multifunctional site of this case belongs.

At the time of the application for the above decision, it was presented as a first proposal to determine the administrative district around the Saemangeum reclaimed area. If it is difficult to determine the first proposal, the second proposal to determine only the tide embankment for which reclamation projects were completed, and the third proposal to determine only the tide embankment for which there is no objection among the relevant local governments is presented. In addition, according to the evidence No. 1, No. 1, No. 1-1, and No. 7, the defendant's notice of application for the decision includes the multifunctional site of this case in the area of the tide embankment No. 3 (2,841,028 square meters) of the "area Extension and size of the tide embankment No. 3" of the "area No. 1, No. 441,028 square meters" of the "area No. 2,841,028 square meters," and the "the outline map of the sections where there is no difference between the local governments" also includes the multifunctional map of the construction site of this case in connection with the outer functions of the Saemangeum Construction.

According to the above facts, the Minister for Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries applied for the decision of the local government to which the whole section of the embankment belongs, including the multifunctional site of this case, the reclamation of which was completed, even though the area is separate from the area where reclamation which could not be the object of the application for the decision, as seen below, among the entire Saemangeum Area. The above plaintiffs' assertion against

C. As to the assertion that the reasons for the decision were not presented

Although the above plaintiffs presented the grounds and reasons when an administrative agency takes a disposition in accordance with Article 23(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act, they asserted that the defendant's notification of the decision in this case only notified the local government to which the reclaimed land in this case belongs as a Gunsan City and did not notify the reasons for such decision.

However, according to the statement Nos. 8-1 and 2 of the evidence Nos. 8-2, it is recognized that the defendant sent through Jeollabuk-do a written resolution of the Committee that specifically presented the reasons for the decision of this case on November 23, 2010 to the above plaintiffs. Thus, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

4. Judgment on the assertion of illegality in the decision of this case

A. As to the allegation that the decision of this case was unlawful since it did not make a lump sum decision on the whole Saemangeum Reclamation area

(1) Although the above plaintiffs decided the local government to vest in the whole Saemangeum Area, the defendant asserted that the decision of this case was unlawful because only the section of the embankment No. 3 (including the multifunctional site) and No. 4 were decided by the local government to vest in the section of the embankment No. 4.

(2) The Local Autonomy Act provides for the procedure to determine a local government to which a reclaimed land belongs under the Public Waters Management Act, and stipulates that a licensing authority under the Public Waters Management Act shall apply for the determination of a local government to which the reclaimed land belongs to the Minister of Security and Security before conducting an inspection of completion pursuant to Article 45 of the said Act (Article 4(4) of the Local Autonomy Act). Article 45 of the Public Waters Management Act provides that a reclamation licensee shall apply for an inspection of completion to the reclamation license agency by determining the location and land category of reclaimed land (referring to a land category pursuant to Article 67 of the Act on Land Survey, Waterway Survey and Cadastral Records

According to the above provisions, the Defendant may decide the local government to which the land belongs before the completion inspection only for the land of which reclamation work has been completed, and the local government to which the reclamation work has not been completed should not be determined for the land, although reclamation is scheduled. Therefore, the Defendant did not decide the local government to which the remainder of reclamation work, excluding the tide embankment section, was not completed as a whole, on the ground that the Defendant did not decide the local government to which the entire reclamation area has not been reverted,

(3) Furthermore, since the Defendant determined only the local government to belong to the section of the embankment Nos. 3 and 4 among the section of the tide embankment Nos. 1 through 4 whose reclamation work was completed, it will examine whether the instant decision is unlawful.

In this case, the Minister for Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (the administrative district of the Saemangeum Area) applied for the first proposal around the Minister for Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (the first proposal to determine the administrative district of the Saemangeum Area), the second proposal (the first proposal to determine only the tide embankment for which reclamation has been completed) and the third proposal (the first proposal to determine only the tide embankment section for which there is no objection among local governments). According to the evidence No. 3-1 through No. 3 and the evidence No. 4-1 through No. 5, the first proposal includes an area which is not a "reclaimed area" as provided in Article 4 (3) 1 of the Local Autonomy Act, and it is unfair that the first proposal includes an area which is not a "reclaimed area", and that the second proposal is unfair for the reason that the administrative district of the Si/Gun should be decided on the whole section of the embankment, and that the third proposal is not an objection to the exercise of authority of the Si/Gun for the section without objection, and that the third proposal and the second proposal of the Si/Gun are not urgent.

According to the above facts, the defendant did not assert that the reclaimed land of this case should belong to his own person until the time when the defendant announced the application for the decision of this case, and as a result, presented to the third proposal the contents that there is no opinion that the local government to which the reclaimed land of this case belongs should belong to the Gunsan City. After that, Kim Jong-gun changed its position, and again consented to the third proposal due to the involvement of Jeollabuk-do, etc., the defendant made the decision of this case to determine the local government to which the reclaimed land of this case belongs only for the reclaimed land of this case, which is the section where there is no difference between the local government and the original government

In addition, if the decision of the local government to which the reclaimed land belongs is delayed for a long time, it is impossible to acquire or transfer ownership due to the impossibility of acquiring or transferring ownership in the cadastral record and real estate registration register, making it difficult to implement the original development plan because it is difficult to attract private capital to secure land according to the development plan, such as road and river, etc. In addition, since the jurisdiction over various administrative affairs such as management of public structures such as road and river, registration and transfer of facilities in the tide embankment, various authorization and permission affairs, road traffic Act, and Food Sanitation Act is not determined, it is unlikely that the state of administrative vacancy will continue. In addition, there is a concern that the responsibility for the prevention of criminal acts in need of urgency, elementary investigation, rescue from a fire

In full view of these circumstances, the decision of this case is not illegal on the ground that the local government, which belongs only to the Saemangeumho Lake 3 and 4, was decided as illegal. This part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

(4) However, as in the instant case, even if the overall reclamation project plan is formulated as a single plan and the overall reclamation project plan is to be carried out in a phased, successive manner by project details or district, there is a risk that the overall implementation plan of the reclamation project may not be reflected in the detailed land use plan of the reclaimed project and the whole area of the reclaimed project, and the decision on reversion of part of the reclaimed area is inevitable due to the need for administrative support on the completed part of the reclamation project, etc., the decision on jurisdiction over the relevant part may also have a considerable impact on the determination on the remaining area. Therefore, even in a case where only a part of the area is located, it is reasonable to make a decision on jurisdiction taking into account the overall implementation plan of the reclamation project in question, the land use plan and purpose of the reclaimed area, the development and use plan of the harbor, etc., in consideration of the overall implementation plan of the reclamation project in question and the overall implementation plan of the reclaimed project in question, and it is not desirable that the entire area of the reclaimed area will be divided into two different areas or less.

Accordingly, we examine the argument that the instant decision, which determined a local government, to which the embankment Nos. 3 and 4 belongs, conforms to the overall decision-making structure and big framework, taking into account the jurisdiction of the area subject to overall reclamation of Saemangeum as a whole, as well as the determination of the illegality of the instant decision as it goes against the fairness and equity.

B. As to the assertion that the decision is unlawful because it goes against the fairness and equity

(1) The above plaintiffs asserted that the decision of this case is unlawful because it is based on the existing maritime boundary line, as well as unreasonable, and the process and contents of the decision are favorable to the military industry to the extent that it is against the equity.

(2) As seen earlier, the Local Autonomy Act stipulates that the local government to which reclaimed land belongs under the Public Waters Management Act shall be decided by the Defendant (Article 4(3)), but there is no provision regarding the determination criteria.

However, according to the Local Autonomy Act, the defendant shall, without delay after receiving an application for decision of a local government to which reclaimed land belongs, widely notify such fact through the Official Gazette or the Internet, etc. In such cases, Articles 42, 44 and 45 of the Administrative Procedures Act [this provision concerning the method of pre-announcement of administrative pre-announcement of legislation (Article 42), submission of opinions and processing (Article 44), and public hearings (Article 45)] shall apply mutatis mutandis (Article 4(5). The defendant shall determine the local government to which reclaimed land belongs according to the Committee’s deliberation and resolution pursuant to Article 149 after the expiration of the period of notification, notify the licensing authority or competent cadastral authority of the result thereof (Article 4(6)), and publicly notify the head of the relevant local government, if deemed necessary in the process of deliberation, have the relevant central administrative agency or local government’s public official or relevant experts attend the meeting, hear their opinions, or request the head of the relevant institution or organization to present their opinions, etc., and if so, the defendant may again give the result to the Supreme Court within 7(4).

Meanwhile, according to the National Assembly's review report (No. 6) on the amendment of the Local Autonomy Act (Act No. 9577 of Apr. 1, 2009, which was newly established that the head of the relevant local government may file a lawsuit with the Supreme Court against the defendant's decision on the local government to which the reclaimed land belongs, there are cases where it is difficult for the local government to achieve the purpose of reclamation as the local government's jurisdiction over the reclaimed land is determined based on maritime boundary, and the same land use planning zone is divided into two or more jurisdictions of local governments. As seen above, the committee's prior deliberation and resolution, permission to file a lawsuit with the Supreme Court, etc. is revised as stipulated in the committee's prior deliberation and resolution, and the Supreme Court's decision is not a maritime boundary, but a new land can be used efficiently through determination in accordance with the land use plan of the reclaimed land. This should be considered first to the extent that the topographical map on the premise that the reclaimed land on the surface of the existing public waters is no more absolute standard for the determination of the reclaimed land.

In light of the contents, form, purport, and process of amendment of the above-mentioned relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, it is reasonable to view that the customary law effect on topographical map, which has been applied as the standard of decision on jurisdiction such as reclaimed land before the amendment of the above Local Autonomy Act, has been modified or restricted by the amendment of the above Local Autonomy Act, and the defendant has a considerable freedom of formation in determining the local government to which reclaimed land belongs. However, in light of the fact that the pertinent decision has the nature of planning discretion, the above freedom of formation does not allow unlimited discretion, but there is a limitation that should be compared and calculated by comprehensively taking into account various public, private, and related local governments’ interests as follows. Accordingly, if the defendant fails to pay the above profit balancing or omits any matters to be included in the subject of consideration of the profit balancing, or where the profit balancing fails to be justified and objectivity, the decision of the local government to which reclaimed land belongs shall be deemed unlawful as it deviates from and abused discretion.

(3) In light of the purport of the amendment of the Local Autonomy Act, the scope of relevant benefits to be considered in determining local governments to which reclaimed land belongs shall generally include the following:

(1) The efficient use of new land shall be made available by determining its jurisdiction in consideration of the detailed land use plan of each area within reclaimed land and organic use relationship with neighboring areas, etc.

(2) A reasonable boundary shall be set up on the basis of a situation in which reclaimed land is used, rather than on the basis of a maritime boundary, in consideration of the shape of connection between reclaimed land and another local government’s jurisdiction, connection and distance between reclaimed land and another local government’s jurisdiction, and the location of natural features, such as roads, rivers, canals, etc., which can be easily recognized as a boundary within the jurisdiction, and artificial structures, etc.

(3) The efficiency of administration shall not be significantly impeded considering various factors, such as the connection and distance between reclaimed land and a neighboring local government, the installation and management of infrastructure, such as roads, ports, electricity, waterworks, and telecommunications, the prompt provision of administrative services, and the ability to cope with emergencies.

(4) In consideration of the transportation relationship between reclaimed land and neighboring local governments, accessibility from outside, etc., a local government’s inclusion in the jurisdiction of the residents of reclaimed land in the residential and living convenience shall be considered.

(5) A neighboring local government and its residents lose adjacent public waters due to reclamation shall take into account the historical and practical benefits of local governments, as well as the basis of living or economic benefits of their residents, which are lost due to the loss of their adjacent public waters.

(4) However, in the case of the reclaimed land of this case, the following facts can be acknowledged according to the above evidence and the result of the on-site inspection by the court.

① The Saemangeum Project is a project that constructs a tide embankment 33 km connecting Gunsan, High Gun Gun Gun , and fatherland and creates 28,300 h and 11,800 h and Gun 11,800 h and is scheduled to implement the project for internal development from 1991 to 2010, the first step project for internal development from 2009 to 2020, and the second step project for internal development from 2021.

(2) When the Saemangeum Project is completed, each area A (the part adjacent to the Gunsan City), B (the part adjacent to the whole city), and C (the part adjacent to the Gun, and the part adjacent to the Gun), as described in attached Table 3, shall be reclaimed, while the development plan for each area reclaimed on the side of the tide embankment under subparagraphs 1 through 4 is as described

③ The tide embankment No. 3 is a reclaimed land constructed by linking the Yando and the Yando. The tide embankment No. 4 is a reclaimed land constructed by linking the Yando and the Yando. The function of the road is also the same as that of the Yando. The multifunctional site is the reclaimed land of 195 degrees formed in the same direction as the tide embankment adjacent to the tide embankment No. 3. However, the implementation plan was established for the Yando development project because the plan did not proceed as anticipated for reasons such as game depression.

(4) Except for multi-functional sites above, an area subject to reclamation of the whole Saemangeum Project is partially revealed due to the completion of tide embankment works, waterproof systems works, etc. and reclamation of tidelands has not been completed.

(5) On the face of a tide embankment 3 and a tide embankment 4, at present, there is only a method of approaching non-emergencys at the Gun, and passing through a tide embankment 1 and 2 on the side of the side of the west, and passing through a tide embankment 2. However, if construction is conducted in the drawings B (the adjoining part) as shown in attached Table 3 as scheduled to pass through Kim Jong-si, it will be a new approach connected with a 2-scale main road on the side of the Saemangeum Sea.

6. At the new City/Do, 135 households are residing by 370 residents, 100 households and 260 residents are living in the Yamido, and the administrative district of the new City/Do and Yamido belongs to the Gunsan, and the new drainage locker installed near the time of tide embankment 3 was constructed using the rocks of the new City/Do.

(5) Based on the above factual basis, first, in light of the legal principles as seen earlier as to the criteria for the determination of the local government to which the reclaimed land belongs, we examine the criteria for the jurisdiction of the entire Saemangeum Area.

The area subject to the whole reclamation of the Saemangeum Project may be classified into A (the adjacent part of the Sinsan City), B (the adjacent part of the Sinsan City), and C (the adjacent part of the Sinan Gun adjacent to the Gunan Gun). Each part is connected to the Gunsan City, Kim Jong-si, and the Gunan Gunan Gun. In particular, Jeonju or the Saemangeum Highway is expected to be connected to the Saemangeum Reclaimed Land by passing through Kim Jong-si, A (the adjacent part of the Sinsan Gun), B (the adjacent part of the Sinsan Gun adjacent), C (the adjacent part of the Sinan Gun adjacent to the Sin Gun), and it seems that the area can be clearly divided into the zone based on the nature of the Sinsan Gun, the area adjacent to the Sin Gun, and the whole area adjacent to the Sin Gun Gun Do dedicated to the Sin Gun dedicated to the Sin Gun dedicated to the Sinsan Gun, the area adjacent to the Sinsan Gun Gun Do dedicated to the Gu Do Do dedicated.

On the other hand, if the determination of the jurisdiction of the area subject to the whole Saemangeum Area based on the topographical map is based on the maritime boundary line, it is difficult to consider the detailed land use plan for the reclaimed land on the side of the Saemangeum Area and the organic use relationship with neighboring areas, and it is difficult to establish a reasonable boundary within the competent area because of disregarding the situation where public waters were used as the reclaimed land. Furthermore, there is a problem such as inefficiency of administration, inconsistency between residents' living zone and administrative authority, division of a single planning zone where the same detailed land use plan is scheduled into multiple local governments, etc. Therefore, the determination of the jurisdiction of reclaimed land or inland water on the side of the Saemangeum Sea Preservation Area may be one factor to consider the existing maritime boundary line, but it is not possible to establish a reasonable boundary within the competent area solely by the maritime boundary line in light of the structure, accessibility, anticipated living rights, and efficiency and suitability of administrative services connected to the above A (the adjacent part of the Sinsan City) and the existing land belonging to each local government.

(6) However, in light of the aforementioned decision process and details of the resolution of the commission and legal principles, the decision of this case, which set the embankments Nos. 3 and 4 under the jurisdiction of the Gunsan City, is not only based on the maritime boundary line on the topographical map, but also based on the maritime boundary line on the topographical map. In addition, even if considering the appropriateness of the determination of jurisdiction over the entire Saemangeum Sea Reclamation area as seen earlier, it cannot be deemed that the pertinent benefits are omitted or the profit balancing lacks legitimacy or objectivity.

In particular, since the above multifunctional site is the land created to be integrated with the embankment No. 3 which is linked to the embankment No. 3 which is constructed in Gun, Si, Gun, and Gun, it is difficult to conclude that the establishment of the land use plan and the urban planning by the Gun, along with the new City/Do and Gun, can enhance the efficiency of the land use. Although the embankment No. 3 (including multifunctional site) and No. 4 were formed as the land through reclamation, it is clearly distinguishable from the Saemangeum reclaimed land which is connected to the existing land between the inland waters inside the embankment No. 3 and the Gun, and even if it is reverted to the Gun, it is difficult to view that the establishment of the boundary within the jurisdiction of the Gun is inappropriate in relation to the land No. 3 which is connected to the Gun, Si, Gun, and Gun, and the Si, Gun, which is the residents of the Gun, provide the administrative services to the Gun, and thus, it is more likely that the administrative services will vest in the new and new road construction area.

Examining these various circumstances in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, it cannot be said that the decision of this case, which decided the local government to which the embankment Nos. 3 and 4 belongs, was unlawful due to the deviation from and abuse of discretionary power. The Plaintiffs’ assertion on the premise of a different view cannot be accepted.

5. Conclusion

Accordingly, the lawsuits of the plaintiff Kim Jong-si and the vice-head of the Gun are dismissed, respectively, and the claims of the plaintiff Kim Jong-gu and the vice-head of the Gun are dismissed as they are without merit, and the costs of lawsuit are borne by the losing party as per the Disposition. This decision was delivered with the assent of all participating Justices.

[Attachment 1] Saemangeum Sea Embankments 3 and 4: omitted

[Attachment 2] Saemangeum Sea Areas 3 and 4: omitted

[Attachment 3] Drawings: Omitted

Justices Kim Chang-suk (Presiding Justice)