gallona Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Magyeongsung, Attorney Dogn-sik, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

The head of Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (Attorney White-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

June 13, 2013

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2012Guhap16985 decided November 1, 2012

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's rejection disposition against the plaintiff on February 16, 2012 against the plaintiff shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance;

This Court's reasoning is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the part written by the court under Paragraph (2) below. Thus, this Court's reasoning is cited by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be dried;

Part VII through Twelve of the Decision of the first instance court "I do not seem to be unnecessary (on the other hand...........)" shall be followed as follows:

It is unnecessary (construction of the road that is implemented by the Plaintiff as the traffic improvement charges in this case, securing one lane by converting the existing news of the sexual bridge into the roadway, and there is no change in the area of the previous bridge main line, only the increase in the area of the road due to the construction of the sidewalk, and the width of the road is 35 meters in the report of the urban planning facility, and the width of the sexual bridge on the topographical map is 32 meters in the width of the road on the topographical map, and the current width of the sexual bridge is 27 meters and is maintained in the above planning line, and therefore it is not necessary to submit a separate urban planning change procedure).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be just and it shall be dismissed as it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Jung-gu (Presiding Judge)

1) In order to confirm whether the procedure for urban planning modification is necessary in implementing the Sungdong Interconnection Construction Project, the Plaintiff applied for an inquiry to the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, and this court adopted it and made an inquiry to the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, and thereafter withdrawn it as the Plaintiff did not arrive at the response to the inquiry by the date of the closing of argument in the court, but the response to the fact inquiry applied by the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport on June 8, 2013, which was after the closing of argument. Accordingly, it is clear that the Sungdong Interdong Construction Project in the instant case is not subject to the determination of urban planning plan (revision) since it expands and alters the road within the site already determined