(영문) 서울고등법원 2010. 8. 19. 선고 2008누32609,2008누32616(병합) 판결

A. Of the instant lawsuit, the part of the Plaintiffs’ primary claim and conjunctive claim against the Korea District Heating Corporation on January 11, 2006 regarding the permission for collective energy project as of January 11, 2006, and the Defendant’s conjunctive claim against the Korea District Heating Corporation on August 19, 2008.

B. The Defendant’s primary claim against the Korea District Heating Corporation on August 19, 2008 regarding permission for change of collective energy projects is dismissed in entirety.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

Purport of claim and appeal

In the judgment of the first instance court, the part against the plaintiffs is revoked. In the first instance court, it is confirmed that the defendant's permission for the collective energy project to the Korea District Heating Corporation on January 11, 2006 and permission for the alteration of collective energy project as of August 19, 2008 are invalid, respectively. Preliminaryly, the defendant's permission for the collective energy project to the Korea District Heating Corporation on January 11, 2006 and the permission for the alteration of collective energy project as of August 19, 2008 are revoked (the plaintiff claimed only the revocation of the collective energy project permission as of January 11, 2006, and added the above primary claim to the other preliminary claim on August 19, 2008).

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

① On March 21, 2008, Plaintiff 1 and 2 acquired the ownership of ○ apartment (number 1 omitted) (hereinafter referred to as “○○ apartment”) (number 1 omitted) (hereinafter referred to as “○ apartment”). Plaintiff 3 (Defendant in the judgment of the Supreme Court) acquired the ownership of ○ apartment (number 2 omitted) on March 31, 2008.

② The Minister of Construction and Transportation (amended to the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs as of February 29, 2008) designated a large-scale multi-level district for the development of a new site (hereinafter referred to as “spawn-si”) in the PP to the PP district for the development of a new site (hereinafter referred to as the “PP district”) around July 197. The Minister of Commerce, Industry and Energy (amended to the Defendant on February 29, 2008) designated and announced a large-level district for the supply of integrated energy as an area for the supply of collective energy around December 199. The said supply district was composed of the heat cogeneration facilities (CHP and high-tension facilities produced from boiler and boiler), which are integrated facilities for the generation of electricity in the ter/electric power station, and the installation of facilities for the supply of heating to the general accommodation, such as neighboring houses, commercial offices, and offices, which are located in the district heating facilities (hereinafter referred to as the “spawn-type and 5thic heating facilities”).

③ On January 1, 2001, the Minister of Construction and Transportation designated a district subject to housing site development (hereinafter “PP 252 + 412”) in the area to be supplied to the Korea District Heating Corporation on September 12, 2003. On December 12, 2003, the Defendant designated and publicly announced one district in the area subject to collective energy supply as an area subject to collective energy supply, and on December 12, 2003, the supply volume of “electric: 350 M, heat: 64Gcal/h(CHP 252 + 412)” in the supply area to the Korea District Heating Corporation (hereinafter “instant integrated energy supply project”). The supply volume of the districts was 350 M, heat: CHP 254Gcal/h(CHP 252), “hea district: 1 district in the vicinity, area adjacent to coal, and the installation period of the facilities.”

④ On December 4, 2003, the Minister of Construction and Transportation designated a district subject to housing site development (hereinafter referred to as the “district 2”) for the zone subject to the zone subject to the zone subject to the zone subject to the zone subject to the zone subject to the zone development (hereinafter referred to as the “PP”) and around January 2005, the Defendant, on April 4, 2005, designated and publicly announced a two district subject to the collective energy supply as an area subject to the collective energy supply, and permitted the collective energy project to supply heat in connection with the heat supply facilities under the zone to the Korea District Heating Corporation.

⑤ On January 11, 2006, the Defendant: (a) granted to the Korea District Heating Corporation a permit to convert the size of “693Gcal/h (including high connection 190Gcal/h, 70Gcal/h)”; (b) the supply capacity “515GW, 705Gcal/h (=CHP 396 + 309)” into a co-electric power plant with the maximum heat size of “693Gcal/h (including high connection 190Gcal/h; 70Gcal/h)”; and (c) the supply capacity “5Gcal/h (i.e., CHP 396 + 309)” (hereinafter “the first permit to change”).

6) On August 31, 2007, the Defendant permitted the Korea District Heating Corporation to operate an integrated energy project (hereinafter referred to as “third collective energy project”) with the supply zone “Seoul Tyang 100W, Heat 13Gal/h” (hereinafter referred to as “Triju 2”), and on June 24, 2008, the Korea District Heating Corporation changed to the maximum of 33Gcal/Gal/Gal 293 Gal 39/Gal 29 of the supply zone with the supply zone “Triju 23Gal/h of the supply zone, etc.”). On the other hand, the Defendant changed to the installation of the 33Galc/G boiler from the supply zone to the 33Galc/h of the supply zone (the 33Galcal/h of the supply zone, etc.) and the installation of the 33Gal 33Galc/Gal 293Gal alal alc boiler to the Korea District Heating Corporation on August 19.

[Ground of recognition] No dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 14-2, Eul evidence 5, 6, Eul evidence 18-1 through 5, Eul evidence 23-1 through 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

The plaintiffs asserts that each of the changes in the permission in this case has the following defects, and the permission for each of the changes in this case is null and void as the major defects are significant and apparent, and the preliminary permission for each of the changes in this case should be revoked illegally.

A) As to the non-performance of environmental impact assessment

As the power generation power plant is constructed as a part of the training site development project, it is subject to environmental impact assessment as a whole, and as a whole, the power generation volume was planned at 200 MW, 350 MW again increased to 515 MW after obtaining the original permission. Since it is apparent that the environmental pollutant emission amount has increased to more than 30% whenever the power generation volume increases as above, it is obvious that the environmental pollutant emission amount has increased to more than 30%, as such, Article 24 of the Act on Assessment of Impacts of Works on Environment, Traffic, Disasters, Etc. (amended by Act No. 9037 of March 28, 2008), the Defendant did not follow the procedures for the alteration consultation at the time of the first alteration.

B) As to the fact that the administrative pre-announcement under the Administrative Procedures Act and the gathering of residents’ opinions under the Integrated Energy Supply Act were not made

Article 46 (1) of the Administrative Procedures Act is a kind of plan promoted at an administrative level, which seriously infringes on the environmental rights and safety of life of many people, as well as the interests of many people are in conflict with each other, and thus, the defendant, who is the permission-granting authority for the so-called integrated energy project, has to undergo an administrative pre-announcement procedure before the first permission for the first change. In addition, Article 5 (2) of the Integrated Energy Supply Act provides that when the defendant intends to change the consulted matters after designating the area to be supplied, he/she shall publicly announce the main contents of the designation of the area to be supplied and hear the opinions of interested parties, such as local residents, etc., but the defendant did not complete all the procedures for gathering opinions from interested parties, such as neighboring residents under the Administrative Procedures Act and the Integrated Energy Supply Act.

C) As to the failure to meet the requirements for permission for collective energy business

The power-driven power plant is expected to emit a large quantity of air pollutants, such as the emission of various kinds of dust (PM-10, fine dust), sulfur oxides (N2) and sulfur oxides (NO2) in the process of burning, and the emission of nitrogen oxides (NOx), even if the capacity of the power plant increases drastically compared to the initial one, and the natural gas (LNG) as fuel is used as fuel is greater than other power plants. Nevertheless, it is anticipated that the air pollutants will be emitted in a large quantity. Nevertheless, it is likely that there is no significant risk of exposure to the environment of the ○○ apartment located in the vicinity, and there is no difference from elementary schools about 30 meters, and the height of bricks to prevent damage caused by air pollutants is extremely low, so that it is likely to seriously undermine the public interest and safety of the nuclear power plant by being exposed to the danger of explosion in the surrounding buildings or topography. Therefore, it is likely that it is likely that it is likely that the residents of the nuclear power plant will be exposed to the danger of exposure to the environment and danger of explosion.

In addition, while the power plant is the supply area of approximately 55,00 households in the vicinity of the Dondong City and the Donpo City, the power plant is the demand of approximately 55,00 households in the supply area. However, in full view of the fact that the supply of heat to the supply area is only an incidental building to the supply area, and that the supply of heat to the supply area is excessive compared with the demand of the supply area and the demand of other heat-combined facilities, the power plant does not meet the requirements of the "supply capacity" under Article 9 (2) 2 of the Integrated Energy Supply Act.

3. The legality of the primary and primary claim part concerning the permission for the primary change of the instant lawsuit

In general, the past legal relations cannot be subject to a lawsuit for confirmation. However, the benefit of confirmation is exceptionally acknowledged in a case where the way to seek confirmation of the past legal relations itself can be an appropriate means to resolve a dispute over the past legal relations, rather than repeating the procedure seeking confirmation on a daily basis on the premise of it. (See Supreme Court Decisions 91Da1134 delivered on June 25, 191, Supreme Court Decision 94Meu147 delivered on March 28, 195, etc.). If an administrative disposition is modified, the disposition becomes void and no longer exists, and a lawsuit for cancellation against a non-existent administrative disposition is unlawful because there is no benefit of lawsuit.

Examining the following circumstances revealed by the aforementioned facts and relevant statutes in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the instant secondary permission constitutes a change in the disposition regarding the permission for the collective energy project of Pakistan, thereby making the instant permission no longer effective and becoming a legal relationship in the past. As such, the primary permission for the instant change becomes no longer effective among the instant lawsuits, all of the primary and conjunctive claims regarding the instant permission for the first change are unlawful.

① With regard to the instant permission for the first change, as part of the area of the Ganyang East-dong, including the area of the Gan new town and the area of the Hayang-dong, which is included in the area of the supply of heat at the Gandong Power Station, were excluded from the instant permission for the second change, the location of one of the 103GGal/h heat-only boiler was moved to the Haong-gun Power Station, and the heat-only boiler at the Gandong-gun Power Station was changed from 3 to 590Gal/h from 693Gal/h to 590Gal/h.

② Article 9(1) and (2) of the Integrated Energy Supply Act (amended by Act No. 933, Jan. 18, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply), Article 8(1) and (2) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Knowledge Economy No. 50, Dec. 31, 2008; hereinafter the same shall apply) provide that permission for alteration shall be granted along with the prescribed documents for the reduction of heat supply zones, the location and capacity of heat generating facilities, etc.

③ Article 16(1) of the Integrated Energy Supply Act provides that “A business operator shall not refuse to supply integrated energy without any justifiable reason to a user in the permitted supply district.” Article 15(1)4 of the Integrated Energy Supply Act provides that “A business operator may revoke a license for a collective energy business if a business operator refuses to supply integrated energy without any justifiable reason, in violation of his/her duty to supply integrated energy.” Article 55 of the Integrated Energy Supply Act provides that “a business operator may revoke a license for a collective energy business.” Article 9(1) of the Integrated Energy Supply Act provides that “A business operator shall be punished by imprisonment, etc., with labor.” Since a license for a collective energy business is a large object of such objective elements as the size of the supply district, the location of the supply district, the location of the facilities, and the capacity of the facilities, etc. of the supply district, and failure to install the heat generating facilities or installed at the original permitted place violates the terms and conditions of permission.”

④ Since the Korea District Heating Corporation has the right and obligation to operate an integrated energy project in accordance with the details of the second change permission, and the specific legal relationship that can be followed by the operation of the project in the future is generated and formed based on the premise of the second change permission after the second change permission in this case was made, it is sufficient and necessary to consider the subject of the second change permission in this case as the subject of the second change permission.

4. Determination as to the primary claim regarding the second permission of the modification among the lawsuits in this case

A. As to whether the consultation about the change of environmental impact assessment should be completed

1) Whether the project is a project subject to environmental impact assessment

Article 4 (1) 3 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Act provides that an energy development project shall be conducted as one of the projects requiring an environmental impact assessment, and Article 4 (3) provides that "the specific scope of the project subject to an environmental impact assessment shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree", and subparagraph 1 (c) (iv) (A) of the Enforcement Decree of the Environmental Impact Assessment Act provides that "the projects under Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Integrated Energy Supply Act excludes power generation facilities installed as integrated energy facilities" so the projects are uniformly excluded from the project subject to an environmental impact assessment among power facilities. As such, the defendant is not obligated to conduct an environmental impact assessment when he grants a permit for an integrated energy development project as part of an energy development project. In addition, considering the purport of arguments as to the above subparagraphs 14-1, 3, 4, 6 through 9, and 17-1, 2, and 3, the land development project itself is not subject to the permission of the Governor of the Gyeonggi-do prior to the alteration of the integrated energy development project, but is not subject to the permission of the development project.

2) As to whether relevant provisions under the Enforcement Decree of the Integrated Energy Supply Act are unconstitutional or unlawful and invalid

The plaintiffs stipulate that Article 4 (1) 3 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Act provides that "the specific scope of a project subject to the environmental impact assessment shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree" and Article 4 (3) of the Environmental Impact Assessment Act provides that "the development facilities installed as collective energy facilities shall be excluded as a project under the provisions of Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Integrated Energy Supply Act" shall be excluded from the project under subparagraph 1 (c) (iv) (A) of the Enforcement Decree of the Environmental Impact Assessment Act (hereinafter "Enforcement Decree of this case") and uniformly excludes the development facilities installed as collective energy facilities under the provisions of Article 2 of the Integrated Energy Supply Act (hereinafter "the provisions of the Enforcement Decree of this case"). In the case of large-scale heat complex facilities, such as a power plant, such large-scale complex facilities, such large-scale facilities are likely to cause serious damage to environmental rights, lives, and physical safety, there is no reasonable reason to prevent neighboring residents from having an opportunity to undergo the environmental impact assessment without considering the amount of electric power generation under the Integrated Energy Supply Act, and the same shall not apply to all cases where the project is uniformly excluded from the project subject to the invalidation.

Therefore, in a case where a subordinate statute was delegated to a subordinate statute with respect to a specific case, determination of whether the subordinate statute complies with the limits of delegation should be made by comprehensively examining the legislative purpose and contents of the pertinent provision, structure of the provision, and relationship with other provisions. In addition, whether the delegation provision itself clearly provides for the limits of delegation by using terms with which the meaning can be accurately known, or whether the delegation provision goes beyond the limits of its literal meaning, or whether it was a new legislation by expanding or reducing the scope of the terms used in the delegation provision beyond the bounds of the meaning of the terms used in the delegation provision (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Du17797, Apr. 29, 2010).

Article 4(3) of the Environmental Impact Assessment Act, which is the delegation provision of this case, delegates to the Presidential Decree the specific scope of the project subject to the environmental impact assessment. Thus, the Enforcement Decree sets a specific scope of the project subject to the environmental impact assessment within the limit of the project subject to the environmental impact assessment under Article 4(1) of the Environmental Impact Assessment Act by classifying the project subject to the environmental impact assessment and the project for which the environmental impact assessment is not required. Article 1 of the Integrated Energy Supply Act provides that “The purpose of this case is to expand the collective energy supply, operate the collective energy supply reasonably, and prescribe matters concerning the installation, operation and safety of collective energy facilities, thereby actively responding to the International Basic Convention on Climate Change.” Article 8(1) of the Integrated Energy Supply Act provides that “The State or a local government may provide funds necessary for the expansion of the integrated energy supply (including liquefied natural gas) or Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Act on the Promotion of the Development, Use and Diffusion of New and Renewable Energy to the extent that it can not be considered as the legislative direction of the national or local government infrastructure.

Unlike the opinion of the above, even if the provision of the Enforcement Decree of this case is deemed unconstitutional or invalid because it deviates from the limit of delegation and it is deemed that it is unconstitutional or unlawful, the defect should be the significant part of the law, and should be objectively obvious. To be subject to an administrative disposition which is unconstitutional or unlawful and invalid, the provision concerning the important part of the administrative disposition, so that the administrative agency's application of the Enforcement Decree, which is unconstitutional or invalid, may become null and void as a result of the provision concerning the important part of the administrative disposition. In addition, it should be objectively obvious that the unconstitutionality or illegality of the provision is objectively obvious. In general, the circumstance that the enforcement decree is in violation of the Constitution or the law can not be seen as objectively obvious that the provision of the Enforcement Decree is unconstitutional or unlawful, unless it is recognized that it is clear that there is no room to dispute about the unconstitutionality or illegality of the provision of the Enforcement Decree, and thus, the defect of the administrative disposition based on the Enforcement Decree of this case can not be seen as a ground for revocation and invalidation (see Supreme Court Decision 200Du14, June 29, 20, etc.).

Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

B. Whether the procedure for administrative pre-announcement and the procedure for gathering opinions from the Integrated Energy Supply Act is necessary

The main sentence of Article 46 of the Administrative Procedures Act provides that " When an administrative agency intends to establish, implement, or modify policies, systems, and plans concerning matters falling under any of the following subparagraphs, such as matters which greatly influence the people's lives, it shall give an advance notice thereof," and stipulates the subject of the administrative advance notice as a policy, system, and plan. Thus, the installation of facilities for coloning the power of the power plant shall not be deemed to fall under

In addition, the main text of Article 5 (2) of the Integrated Energy Supply Act provides that "the Minister of Knowledge Economy shall, when he/she intends to designate an area to be supplied pursuant to paragraph (1), publicly announce the main contents of the designation of the area to be supplied for at least 30 days, and consult with the head of the relevant central administrative agency and the Special Metropolitan City Mayor, Metropolitan City Mayor, Metropolitan City Mayor, Do Governor or Special Self-Governing Province Governor (hereinafter referred to as "Mayor/Do Governor") after hearing the opinions of interested parties, such as residents, etc. in the area to be supplied for the first time after being amended by Act No. 8487 of May 25, 2007. However, although the second amendment was effective at the time of the first amendment of the above provision, the second amendment of the above provision does not clearly change the opportunity of residents to gather opinions in the area to be supplied for the first time after being designated as the area to be supplied for the first time, and it does not seem to be disadvantageous to interested parties such as the second amendment.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

C. As to the failure to meet the requirements for permission for collective energy business

1) Facts of recognition

(1) As a result of the decrease in the supply area in accordance with the second permission for the change in the supply area of this case, the power-driven power plant is anticipated to have a maximum of 693Gal/h from 693Gal/h to 590Gal/h, a maximum of 15% reduction of the heat sales volume from 2,179,257Gcal/years to 1,857,462Gal/years to 15% reduction of the amount of fuel usage, the amount of fuel usage is anticipated to reach 34,28t/Y as 87,028Gcal/years to 34,288Gal/years to 350W, and on the basis of which the amount of electricity supply increases from 350M to 515M, an amount of Nx emission quantity is expected to increase from 16.53gs to 19.79g/79gs to 29% of the amount of air pollutants to 29.27% of the emission quantity per hour.

② On November 20, 2007, the Korea District Heating Corporation obtained a building permit for two heat-only boilers from the Papju-si on or around November 20, 2007, set a buffer zone between neighboring areas and the heat-combined power plants, thereby expanding the separation distance between the power plant and neighboring areas to approximately 180 meters. The separation distance between the bricks of the heat-combined power plant installed in the Seoul Metropolitan Area and the houses is as listed below.

본문내 포함된 표 구분 파주 화성 분당 일산 안양 수원 용인 열병합발전설비 전기(MW) 515 511 940 927 480 43 소각로 열(Gcal/h) 393 397 903 845 484 71 75t/d 사용연료 LNG LNG LNG LNG LNG 중유 페기물 주택과 이격거리 ？ 166 325 268 201 174 115

③ The brick height of a power plant at a power plant at a power plant at a power plant at a power plant at a power plant at a time of 80 meters. The brick height of a power plant at a power plant using natural gas as fuel is 75 meters and 80 meters in the case of a power plant at a power plant at a power plant at a power plant at a power plant at a power plant at a power plant at a power plant at a power plant. The power plant at a power plant at a power plant is designed to continuously monitor pollutants discharged by installing a real-time chimney emission automatic gas measuring system (Tm equipment, Tele-M-oning Sym) and to ensure that monitoring results are

④ The gas pressure facilities, which were planned to be installed in the site of a power plant, had already been modified prior to the instant secondary permission for change, to move to another place for the integrated installation of pressure facilities and integrated installation for the supply of urban gas by taking advantage of a power plant and a stop station. Moreover, the gas power plant is supplied with LNG, which is a fuel, through the piping network of the Korea Gas Corporation, and does not require a separate charging station or storage facilities.

(5) The concentration of nitrogen oxides emission was designed to be emitted at a level below 1/2 of 50 pm, which is the permissible level under the Clean Air Conservation Act. The emission density of nitrogen oxides anticipated to be generated was concluded to have the performance that can be maintained at 20 pm, if the concentration of nitrogen oxides emission exceeds 70%.

6) The 54Gcal/h, and the Mariju City (Haak 1, 2 districts) around the 359Gcal/h, and the 20Gcal/h. The 190Gcal/h and the 193Gcal/h were calculated in total as the supply of high-sea by linking the 190Gcal/h and the 70Gal/h to the L. The Korea District Heating Corporation had reduced the capacity of the heat-driven boiler (HB) through the first permission to change the efficiency of energy use. Accordingly, the volume of the electricity supply of the Mariic power plant (HB districts) was determined by the Defendant based on such formula as determined by the Defendant’s supply of high-demanding power plants.

[Basis] Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 13-1, Evidence No. 13-2, Evidence No. 22-1, 2, Eul No. 6, 11-14, 16, 19, and 21

2) Determination

If a defective administrative disposition is to be null and void as a matter of course, the defect must not only be a serious violation of the important part of the law, but also be objectively apparent.

In light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances revealed by the aforementioned facts and the pertinent statutes, namely, ① there is no restriction on the separation distance between heat-combined power plants and neighboring houses, and rather, it appears that the Defendant, who is the permitting authority of integrated energy supply business, is given considerable discretion to do so; ② If the separation distance between power plants and neighboring houses is considerably short compared to the cases of other heat-combined power plants, the separation distance between the heat-driven power plants and neighboring houses cannot be deemed considerably short; ③ if the height of the power plant’s bricks and other heat-combined power plants is considerably low, it is not very inappropriate to diversify the emission of pollutants. ④ In light of the above legal principles, it is unreasonable for the 2nd generation of integrated energy supply facilities to meet the permissible level under the NOx Clean Air Conservation Act after obtaining the permission of each of the instant cases, and it is unreasonable for the 2nd generation of integrated energy supply facilities to considerably increase the supply of electricity in the area to which the energy-saving demand of the 1st generation facilities could be generated by the 2nd generation of new energy supply facilities.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

5. The legality of the conjunctive claim regarding the second modification of the instant lawsuit among the instant lawsuits

Article 22 of the Administrative Litigation Act provides that the modification of a lawsuit under Article 22 of the Administrative Litigation Act is particularly recognized by the law and does not reject the modification of the lawsuit under the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, the plaintiff of the administrative litigation may modify the purport or the cause of the claim within the scope of not changing the foundation of the claim pursuant to Article 235 of the Civil Procedure Act applied mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act (see Supreme Court Decision 99Du9407 delivered on November 26, 199). In this case, whether the period for filing the changed lawsuit is complied with shall be determined on the basis of the date of filing of the lawsuit before the original modification. Further, Article 20(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act provides that "a revocation lawsuit shall be filed within 90 days from the date on which the disposition, etc. is known, and Article 20(2) provides that "the same shall not apply where there is a justifiable reason."

On the other hand, the plaintiffs asserted that the modification of the Civil Procedure Act was made by adding the conjunctive claim about the second modification permission of this case at the trial. Thus, whether the conjunctive claim part seeking revocation of the second modification permission of this case among the lawsuit of this case complies with the filing period of this case. It is obvious in the record that the plaintiffs filed the conjunctive claim seeking revocation of the first modification permission of this case more than 1 year after the date of the first modification permission of this case. Thus, the plaintiff's conjunctive claim part seeking revocation of the first modification permission of this case was filed on April 14, 2008, which is clearly obvious that the above first modification permission of this case was filed, and the period of filing the lawsuit for revocation of the first modification permission of this case was limited to the period of filing the lawsuit stipulated in Article 20 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, and the plaintiffs were also entitled to the first modification permission of this case from the date of March 208, 208, since the plaintiff had no sufficient opportunity to file the first modification permission of this case and the first owner of this case were installed within the first owner of this case.

[This case's second modification constitutes "a modification to a disposition" under Article 22 of the Administrative Litigation Act. However, even if adding the second modification claim of this case to the second modification claim of this case constitutes "a modification to a lawsuit due to the alteration of disposition" under Article 22 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 22 (1) and (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act provides that "where an administrative agency has changed after the filing of a lawsuit subject to a lawsuit, the plaintiff may apply for the alteration of the purport of the lawsuit or cause, but the application shall be made within 60 days after the date when the alteration of disposition becomes known," the defendant presented to the court on September 21, 2009 "the second modification of the second modification claim of this case was made on August 19, 2008," the second modification claim of this case's second modification claim of this case's "the second modification claim of this case was made on August 20, 2008 and documents related to the second modification claim of this case's contents to the plaintiff's attorney for revocation of the above disposition.

6. Conclusion

Therefore, the main claim in the lawsuit of this case, which was added in the trial, and the main claim for the cancellation of the permission of this case and the main claim for the second permission of the second permission of this case added in the trial, are all unlawful. Thus, the main claim for the second permission of this case added in the trial is dismissed. The main claim for the second permission of this case, which was added in the trial, shall be dismissed. The plaintiff shall change in the judgment of the court of first instance and dismiss the main claim for the first permission of this case and the main claim for the second permission of the second permission of this case among the lawsuit of this case. The plaintiff shall dismiss the main claim for the second permission of this case and dismiss the main claim for the second permission of the second permission of this case. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment Form 5]

Judges Lee Jae-hoon (Presiding Judge)

심급 사건

-서울행정법원 2008.10.22.선고 2007구합39298

서울고등법원 2010.8.19.선고 2008누32609,2008누32616(병합)

-대법원 2012.12.13.선고 2010두20782,20799

원심판결

-서울행정법원 2008. 10. 22. 선고 2007구합39298, 2008구합16049(병합) 판결

본문참조판례

-대법원 1991. 6. 25. 선고 91다1134 판결

-대법원 1995. 3. 28. 선고 94므1447 판결

-대법원 1999. 11. 26. 선고 99두9407 판결