1. The part of the preliminary claim in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;

2. Of the instant lawsuit, the ancillary claim is part of the claim.

Basic Facts

This part of the judgment of the court is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of "Article 9 (1) 2 of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on Urban Improvement" to "The D Zone and E Zone of this case" in the fourth and second Forms 1 and 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Related Acts and subordinate statutes (attached Form 2) shall be as stated in the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes.

The main point of the defendant's assertion regarding the prior defense of the merits is that there is no legal right to request the cancellation of the designation of the zone D or E in this case, and thus, the civil petition of this case does not constitute an administrative disposition that is subject to appeal litigation.

Therefore, all of the ancillary claims in the instant lawsuit are unlawful.

Judgment

If an administrative agency’s rejection of a citizen’s petition constitutes an administrative disposition that is subject to an appeal litigation, the right to request an administrative agency’s action should be the citizen’s right to file a petition under the relevant law or sound reasoning. If an administrative agency refuses to accept a citizen’s petition without the basis of the right to file a petition, such rejection does not affect the applicant’s right or legal interest, and it cannot

Article 4-3(4)2 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Du11626, Apr. 15, 2005). Article 4-3(4)2 of the same Act provides that “The Special Metropolitan City Mayor, etc. may cancel the designation of an improvement zone after deliberation by the relevant local urban planning committee where deemed that the designation purpose cannot be achieved in light of the implementation status of the planned improvement zone or the improvement zone. In such cases, matters necessary for the detailed standards, etc. under subparagraph 2 shall be prescribed by City/Do Ordinance.”