Cases in which a waterway is designated as a reserved land for replotting without considering the standards of Article 32 of the Urban Planning Act.

It is illegal that a disposition that approves the designation of a non-necessary and value-free waterway as a planned land substitution for an irrigation channel for the irrigation channel is illegal.

Article 32 of the Urban Planning Act

Daegu Land Measuring Association

Do Governor of Gyeonggi-do;

Daegu High Court Decision 65Gu41 delivered on June 29, 1967

We reverse the original judgment.

The case shall be remanded to the Daegu High Court.

The grounds of appeal No. 1 are examined as follows.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the non-party Daegu City rearrangement project was authorized as a substitute land substitution for the above 1st inventory after the plaintiff failed to comply with the above disposal by the non-party Daegu City rearrangement project and the non-party Daegu City rearrangement project, including the main land owned by the plaintiff, for which the non-party Daegu City rearrangement project was conducted with respect to the surrounding land area rearrangement project, and the plaintiff association was to install irrigation irrigation channels installed on the land attached to the 5th annexed Table 1 of the judgment below in order to let the land unit rearrangement project, but the non-party association was designated as a substitute land substitution for the above 2th inventory of the above 1st inventory of the land and the defendant did so. The execution of the original urban planning project shall be executed by the administrative agency and the Minister of Construction and Transportation may execute part of the project at the request of the non-party Daegu City rearrangement project, and the person who executes the rearrangement project with the permission of the administrative agency or the Minister of Construction and Transportation shall exchange the previous land category and the purpose of the land substitution project for the public welfare improvement project.

However, as in the above case, the court below pointed out that the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the designation of a planned land substitution in accordance with the Urban Planning Act and the legal principles on the defects of administrative dispositions, as stated in the above, since the court below's decision that the land substitution as a planned land substitution for the above list No. 1, which was a planned land substitution for the above list No. 2, designated a waterway installed on the above list No. 2 as a planned land substitution for the land substitution for the land substitution for the extent that the disposition should not be revoked, the court below did not reverse

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench in order to make a new trial and determination.

Judge Do-dong (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court