In a case where both administrative agencies issue a certificate of urban planning even though there is no decision of urban planning facilities, there is legal interest to seek confirmation of absence of such decision (affirmative)

If an administrative agency with the authority to make a determination of urban planning facilities under the Urban Planning Act issues an urban planning certificate with the indication of "park site" by treating the completion of the determination of urban planning facilities as a park site in spite of the absence of the determination of urban planning facilities as a park site, notwithstanding the absence of the determination of urban planning facilities as a park site, there is a legal interest to seek confirmation of the absence of such determination in order to eliminate the uncertainty in the legal relations.

Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Plaintiff

Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor

Seoul High Court Decision 84Gu184 delivered on January 18, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

As determined by the court below, if the defendant, who has the authority to determine urban planning facilities as to the land in this case owned by the plaintiff, did not have to make the above determination of urban planning facilities under the Urban Planning Act, handled the above land as a park site under the Urban Planning Act, and issued the urban planning confirmation by indicating the above land as "park site", notwithstanding the absence of the decision of urban planning facilities as to the above land, there is a clear legal apprehension for the defendant to seek confirmation of non-existence of the decision. Thus, the plaintiff has a legal interest to seek confirmation of non-existence of the decision for the purpose of removing legal uncertainty. Since the subject matter of this lawsuit in this case is obvious that the existence of the decision of urban planning facilities as to the land in this case is the existence of the decision of urban planning facilities as to the land in this case, it cannot be deemed administrative disposition on the premise that

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kang Jin-young (Presiding Justice)