2014Guhap9981 Revocation of Disposition rejecting to cancel a park site

A

Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor

September 4, 2014

October 23, 2014

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The defendant's rejection disposition against the plaintiff on March 27, 2014 against the application for cancellation of the park site is revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. Each land listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant land”) was determined and publicly announced as an urban planning facility (park) on January 6, 1968 by the public notice of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation on January 6, 1968, and the park building plan related to the said land was determined and publicly announced by the public notice of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation C on December 23, 1983.

B. Meanwhile, on the other hand, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the land No. 2 as indicated in the separate sheet No. 3 as of August 27, 1981, the registration of ownership transfer on the share of 2496 out of the land No. 3 as indicated in the same list as of December 7, 1981, and the registration of ownership transfer on the share of 1/2 out of the land No. 4 as indicated in the same list as of March 31, 19

C. On April 10, 1985, the Plaintiff obtained permission from the Defendant for an urban planning project (construction of park facilities) and completed the tennis on the instant land around January 20, 1986, and operated it from around that time to August 7, 201 (Seoul Special Metropolitan City Notice B).

D. On March 19, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for the cancellation of the determination of urban planning facilities (park) to request the Defendant to cancel the purchase compensation for the instant land or the designation of the said land as a park site (hereinafter “instant application”). However, on March 27, 2014, the Defendant, on which the urban planning facility project was not implemented on the Plaintiff, falls under the subject of compensation; however, the Plaintiff already installed the tennis and its affiliated facilities on the instant land in accordance with the urban planning project (construction of park facilities), and thus, did not fall under the subject of compensation, and the Defendant’s refusal to cancel the designation of the park site in the vicinity of the living zone is difficult in principle because it promoted policies to expand parks and green areas around the living zone. (See evidence 4 of this case; hereinafter referred to as “the reply of this case”). [In the absence of dispute over the grounds for recognition, the purport of each of subparagraphs 1, 4, 1, and 1, 1, 2- and 3-1 through 3-3 of the entire pleadings.

2. Judgment on the defendant's main defense

A. The defendant's main defense

In addition, the defendant does not have a provision that residents may apply for the cancellation of urban planning facilities under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter referred to as the "National Land Planning Act"), and there is no legal or logical application right to seek the cancellation of urban planning facilities (park), since there is no change in circumstances with respect to long-term, comprehensive administrative plans such as urban planning once the plan is finalized, the right to claim the modification of the plan cannot be acknowledged to local residents. Thus, the plaintiff has no right to request the cancellation of the decision of urban planning facilities (park). In addition, Article 26 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act provides that "the residents may propose the formulation of urban planning plans to a person who is able to draft urban management plans." However, in the application of this case, the plaintiff did not comply with the procedure and form stipulated in Article 26 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, so the application of this case is merely a simple civil petition. Accordingly, the answer of this case that the defendant rejected the plaintiff's application for the cancellation of the

B. Determination

In order to reduce restrictions on the exercise of property rights by individuals due to the determination of urban planning facilities, the National Land Planning Act has the provisions concerning claims for purchase of sites for urban planning facilities (Article 47) and the invalidation of the determination of urban planning facilities (Article 48), and imposes an authority to formulate urban planning facilities (Article 34) with the overall review of the validity of the urban management planning within their jurisdiction every five years (Article 34), and with respect to the proposal for formulation of urban management plans, the residents may propose the formulation of urban management planning, along with the "books and specifications of urban management planning" concerning the designation and alteration of district unit planning zones, and the formulation of urban management planning plans and the matters concerning the formulation and alteration of district unit planning (Article 26(1) and (2)) and the purpose of guaranteeing property rights by the Constitution, a resident who owns land, etc. within the urban management planning district has the right to request the authority to formulate the urban management plan to submit an application under the laws or cooking that enable the authority to formulate the plan (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Du18636, Apr. 28, 20004).

Based on the above legal principles, the plaintiff is seeking to modify the urban management plan to the effect that the plaintiff would cancel the determination of urban planning facilities (park) on the land of this case through the application of this case. This is sufficient to view it as a proposal for the formulation of urban management planning under Article 26 of the National Land Planning Act, which the plaintiff has the right to apply in light of its content. Even if the plaintiff did not comply with the procedure and form under Article 26 of the National Land Planning Act in the course of the application of this case, if the plaintiff requested supplementation and the plaintiff did not comply with the request for supplementation, the defendant would be able to make a decision on the propriety of the application of this case on the ground that it would be possible to determine whether the application of this case is proper without relation to the supplement of the attached documents, or if it is possible to determine the contents of the proposal alone. The defendant's rejection of the application of this case through this case. Therefore, it is reasonable to view

3. Whether the reply of this case is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The road abutting on the land of this case is created on the right side, and the land of this case is created on the left side, and it is difficult to view that the land of this case plays any role in the protection of the natural environment any longer. However, even after the park building plan is determined and publicly announced as urban planning facilities (park) and the land of this case is left neglected on the land of this case, and the plaintiff et al., the owner of this case, etc., established and operated the tennis on behalf of the defendant on behalf of the defendant, without installing a park, and even after the park building plan is decided and publicly announced, the plaintiff et al., who is the owner of this land has not opened and operated the tennis site on behalf of the defendant, but at present, it is highly necessary for the defendant to revoke the decision designating the above land as a park site.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

(5) The Plaintiff acquired ownership of some of the land of this case from around August 1981 to around August. 200. Since the Plaintiff had already been designated as an urban planning facility at the time of acquiring ownership, it appears that the Plaintiff would have acquired ownership to a certain extent. ② Even if the land of this case is designated as a park site, it is possible for Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government to construct a building or change the form and quality of the land (see, e.g., the proviso to Article 27 (1) of the Act on Urban Parks, Greenbelts, Etc.), Articles 26 through 30, [Attachment 3] of the Enforcement Decree of the said Act, and [Attachment 1] of the said Act to ensure that the land of this case was not constructed for a long time on the above land (see, e.g., the Seoul Metropolitan Government Ordinance No. 4571, Aug. 10, 1985).

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

The judge of the presiding judge;

Judges Cho Jae-chul

Judges Kim Jae-sung

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.