It shall not be deemed that there was an excessive defect between the two parts of the land size and the consent form attached to the land owner, which is less than 2/3 of the land size, in the disposition of the Minister of Construction and Transportation for an implementer of an urban planning project who is not an administrative agency.

The Minister of Construction and Transportation’s disposition of approving the project implementation plan for an urban planning project operator, which is not an administrative agency, does not regard it as an invalidation disposition, even if there was an excessive defect between the two-thirds of the land size and the written consent of the landowner.

Article 3(5) of the Enforcement Decree of the former Urban Planning Act, Article 3(6) of the Enforcement Decree of the former Urban Planning Act

Plaintiff

Do Governor of Gyeonggi-do;

Daegu High Court Decision 70Gu5 delivered on March 30, 1971

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal by the plaintiff's attorney are examined.

In principle, the execution of the urban planning project shall be executed by the administrative agency pursuant to Article 5 (1) of the former Urban Planning Act, but if the Minister of Construction and Transportation deems it necessary pursuant to Article 3 (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, he may have a person other than the administrative agency execute the project, and if one or more landowners in the project area apply for the authorization of the project to the Minister of Construction and Transportation, who is the competent administrative agency, by setting the project plan, the rules and other necessary matters under Articles 27 and 40 of the former Urban Planning Act, pursuant to Article 104 of the former Urban Planning Act, he may implement a land readjustment project as one of the urban planning projects under Article 2 of the Urban Planning Act, and if such a partnership intends to obtain the authorization of the Minister of Construction and Transportation with respect to the project plan under Article 6 of the former Urban Planning Act, he shall attach a written consent equivalent to more than 2/3 of the land area of the project area to the land owner who is not the Minister of Construction and Transportation, regardless of the contents of the above written consent.

However, the defect in the approval disposition can not be seen as a clear cause, and it cannot be said that it constitutes a cause for revocation or a cause for invalidation. Therefore, even if there is a defect in the consent form attached to the application form, such as the theory of lawsuit, even if there is a defect in the approval form for the project implementation plan for the land zone rearrangement association in the Daegu City of this case, it cannot be said that it is a disposition for invalidation, and it cannot be said that the existence and effectiveness of the disposition cannot be denied unless it is deemed to be an illegal administrative disposition or revoked.

Although the court below's explanation on this point is insufficient, the court below's conclusion that the 7th land rearrangement cooperative in the Daegu City of this case, which obtained the approval of a land substitution plan from the Minister of Construction and Transportation on July 15, 1963, is justifiable. In addition, in applying for a land substitution plan with the approval of the Minister of Construction and Transportation, the association which carries out a land substitution plan under the former Urban Planning Act must obtain the consent of more than 2/3 of the landowners and the owners of houses and other structures under Article 59 of the Land Improvement Project Act, so it is hard to conclude that the above approval of land substitution plan is unlawful, but it cannot be concluded that there is a defect in the above land substitution plan, and it cannot be concluded that the defendant's land substitution plan is invalid as well as the land substitution plan for the association which obtained the approval of the land substitution plan under the former Urban Planning Act, and thus, it cannot be viewed that the above approval of the land substitution plan has no illegality but to be cancelled as an unlawful ground.

There is no ground for appeal to the effect that there is an error in the misapprehension of legal principles in the original judgment on the premise that the Minister of Construction and Transportation's approval and disposition of the implementation plan for the rearrangement project of the land zone in Daegu City, 7, and the Defendant's designation

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

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