[1] Where applying for authorization by modifying a replotting plan according to the interested party’s opinion presented in the first process of public inspection under the former Land Readjustment Project Act, whether the modified contents should undergo procedures for re-public inspection (affirmative), and whether the disposition of designation of the land scheduled for substitution is legitimate in accordance with the authorized replotting plan and the land substitution plan without undergoing the re-public inspection procedure (negative)

[2] The case holding that although the competent Mayor received an application for authorization of change of the business plan and the land substitution plan without taking a procedure for public perusal of the amended land substitution plan by the project implementer, it cannot be deemed that the procedure for public perusal conducted by the competent Mayor is the procedure for public perusal required at the time of authorization of change of the business plan, and it cannot be deemed that the procedure for public perusal of the amended land substitution plan was completed by the project implementer

[1] The purpose of Article 47 and Article 33 of the former Land Planning and Rearrangement Project Act (repealed by Act No. 6252 of Jan. 28, 200) is to allow interested parties, such as land owners, etc. to provide an opportunity to submit a written opinion prior to an application for authorization of a land substitution plan under the provisions of Articles 47 and 33 of the same Act is to reflect many interested parties' intent in the formulation of a land substitution plan and to reasonably adjust their mutual interests. Thus, in cases where an opinion is presented from interested parties during the first public inspection process and an application for authorization by modifying a land substitution plan is to be filed accordingly, it is in conformity with the purport of the above system that the procedure should be followed again for public inspection. The disposition of designation of a land substitution plan under the authorized land substitution plan and such land substitution plan without undergoing the above re-public inspection procedure is unlawful.

[2] The case holding that although the competent Mayor received an application for authorization of change of the business plan and the land substitution plan without taking a procedure for public perusal of the amended land substitution plan by the project implementer, it cannot be deemed that the procedure for public perusal conducted by the competent Mayor is the procedure for public perusal required at the time of authorization of change of the business plan, and it cannot be deemed that the procedure for public perusal was completed by the project implementer as to the amended land substitution plan.

[1] Articles 33 and 47 of the former Land Readjustment Projects Act (repealed by Act No. 6252 of Jan. 28, 200), Articles 4, 10, 12, and 24 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Land Readjustment Projects Act (repealed by Presidential Decree No. 1693 of Aug. 2, 200), Article 4 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Land Readjustment Projects Act (repealed by Presidential Decree No. 260 of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation of Aug. 30, 200), Article 5, 9, 12, 14, 32(1), 3, 46, 47, 56, and 24 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Land Readjustment Projects Act (repealed by Act No. 6252 of Jan. 28, 200), Article 20 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Land Readjustment Projects Act (repealed by Presidential Decree No. 20143, Apr. 3, 2008)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 97Nu6889 delivered on August 20, 199 (Gong1999Ha, 2098)

Plaintiff 1 and 27 others (Attorney Or-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Association for the Adjustment of Land Partitioned in the Seongbukbuk-do District (Attorney Cho Jong-ok, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Busan High Court Decision 99Nu332 delivered on October 8, 1999

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan High Court.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence adopted by the lower court, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s request for authorization of land substitution plan 1. The Defendant, including the instant land owned by the Plaintiffs on December 18, 1995, and ( Address 1 omitted), and the Defendant’s request for authorization of land substitution plan 2. The Defendant’s request for authorization of land substitution plan 9. The Defendant’s request for authorization of land substitution plan 1.0 on July 10, 196; the Defendant’s request for authorization of land substitution plan 1.0 on June 16, 1997; the Defendant’s request for authorization of land substitution plan 9.0 on July 16, 1997; the Defendant’s request for authorization of land substitution plan 1.0 on August 7, 1997; and the Defendant’s request for authorization of land substitution plan 9.7 on August 17, 197; and the Defendant’s request for authorization of land substitution plan 19.05% on the initial land size 4.97

The lower court determined that, as long as the Defendant had followed the public inspection process regarding the change of a project plan and a replotting plan, even if he accepted the opinions of interested parties presented in the above public inspection procedure and revised a replotting plan, the application for authorization may be filed even without going through the public inspection procedure. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Defendant did not go through the new public inspection procedure regarding a modified replotting plan, and therefore, the instant disposition of designating a replotting plan was not unlawful.

2. The purpose of Article 47 and Article 33 of the former Land Readjustment Projects Act ( repealed by Act No. 6252, Jan. 28, 200; hereinafter referred to as the "Act") is to allow interested parties, such as land owners, etc. to make public the relevant documents prior to an application for authorization of a land substitution plan and to provide them with an opportunity to submit their written opinions. Since the purpose of this provision is to reflect the opinions of many interested parties about a land substitution plan in the formulation of a land substitution plan and to reasonably adjust their mutual interests, in cases where an application for authorization by modifying a land substitution plan is to be made by presenting opinions from interested parties during the first public inspection process, the procedure for public inspection of the modified contents should be followed again, and the disposition of designating a land substitution plan and a land substitution plan by such land substitution plan shall be deemed unlawful (see Supreme Court Decision 97Nu6889, Aug. 20, 199).

As seen earlier, in this case where the Defendant did not take the procedure for public inspection of the amended replotting plan, the Defendant received an application for authorization from the smuggling-si Mayor and followed the procedure for public inspection. The public inspection procedure conducted by the smuggling-si market is under Articles 14 and 12 of the Act and Article 10 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, which are the provisions for the public inspection procedure required at the time of approving the alteration of the replotting plan. Meanwhile, under Articles 47 and 33 of the Act and Article 24 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, the implementer must make the public inspection procedure to apply for the authorization of the replotting plan, and the implementer shall notify the relevant land owner of the gist of the procedure in addition to the public announcement of the prescribed matters to implement the procedure for public inspection. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the smuggling-yang market has implemented the procedure for public inspection and the Defendant has gone through the public inspection procedure concerning the amended replotting plan.

Nevertheless, the court below held that, as long as the defendant had followed the procedure of public inspection on the change of a business plan and a land substitution plan, even if it modified a land substitution plan by accepting the opinions of the interested parties presented in the public inspection procedure, it can apply for authorization even without going through the public inspection procedure. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the procedure for public inspection required at the time of authorization of

The argument of the same purport in the grounds of appeal is justified and this Court has accepted such argument.

3. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Shin Shin-chul (Presiding Justice)