[1] The legal nature of Article 20-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restitution of Development Gains Act and Article 15-2 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, which are provisions for notification of the business subject to development charges (=the provision of an official decoration to an administrative agency)

[2] Requirements for the application of the principle of the protection of trust to the acts of an administrative agency

[3] The case affirming the judgment of the court below holding that even if the administrative agency stated "no matter to be promoted" as a result of the opinion of the relevant department before implementing the development project under the Restitution of Development Gains Act, it is difficult to view that it ordered the public opinion that is the requirement for applying the principle of protection of trust in the disposition of imposition of development charges after the completion of the development project

[1] In full view of the relevant provisions such as Articles 20 and 21 of the Restitution of Development Gains Act, Article 20 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and the purport of the development charges system, the provisions concerning notification of the business subject to the development charges under Article 20-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act and Article 15-2 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act are the administrative agency'

[2] In general in administrative legal relations, in order to apply the principle of the protection of trust to an act of an administrative agency, first, the administrative agency should name the public opinion that is the object of trust to an individual, second, the administrative agency's statement of opinion is justified and there is no cause attributable to the individual, third, the individual should have trusted and trusted the opinion statement of the administrative agency, third, the administrative agency should have conducted any act corresponding thereto, fourth, the administrative agency's disposition contrary to the above opinion statement is against the above opinion statement, thereby infringing on the individual's interest, and last, the administrative disposition according to the above opinion statement should not be likely to seriously undermine the public interest or legitimate interests of a third party.

[3] The case affirming the judgment of the court below which held that even if prior to the implementation of the development project as prescribed by the Restitution of Development Gains Act, the civil petition preliminary examination questioning whether the administrative agency's construction of weddings, etc. on the ground of the land is possible under the related Acts and subordinate statutes, it is difficult to view that the subsequent disposition of development charges was an official statement that is an element for applying the principle of protection of trust in relation to the imposition of development charges, and that it was an official statement that is trusted to individuals

[1] Articles 20 and 21 of the Restitution of Development Gains Act, Articles 20 and 20-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restitution of Development Gains Act, Article 15-2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Restitution of Development Gains Act / [2] Article 4 of the Administrative Procedures Act / [3] Article 3 of the Restitution of Development Gains Act, Article 4 of the Administrative Procedures Act

[2] Supreme Court Decision 200Du8684 Decided September 28, 2001 (Gong2001Ha, 2371) Supreme Court Decision 2001Du7251 Decided November 9, 2001 (Gong2002Sang, 57) Supreme Court Decision 2001Du10851 Decided July 11, 2003 (Gong2005Du3165 Decided July 8, 2005) (Gong2004Du13592 Decided February 24, 2006)

Inn Livestock Industry Cooperatives (Attorneys Noh Byung-il et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

the head of Si/Gun

Seoul High Court Decision 2003Nu225 delivered on November 28, 2003

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

In full view of the relevant provisions, such as Articles 20 and 21 of the former Restitution of Development Gains Act (amended by Act No. 6832, Dec. 26, 2002; hereinafter “Act”) and Article 20 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17963, Apr. 7, 2003); and the purport of the system of development charges, the provisions on notification of projects subject to development charges under Article 20-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act and Article 15-2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act shall be deemed to be an official decoration provision for administrative agencies.

The decision of the court below to the same purport is correct, and there is no violation of the law as to Article 20-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act and Article 15-2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act.

The argument that the disposition of this case is illegal in violation of Article 14(1) of the Act is only the first time in the final appeal, and the above provision is also an official decoration provision against the administrative agency (see Supreme Court Decision 97Nu1211 delivered on September 21, 199). Therefore, the argument in the grounds of appeal on this point is not acceptable.

2. In general in administrative legal relations with regard to the second ground of appeal, in order to apply the principle of protecting trust to the acts of an administrative agency, first, the administrative agency should name the public opinion that is the object of trust to the individual, second, the trust of the administrative agency's opinion that the individual's opinion is justifiable should not be attributable to the individual, third, the administrative agency should have trusted the opinion's opinion's name and have committed any act corresponding thereto. Fourth, the administrative agency's disposition contrary to the above opinion's name should cause an infringement on the individual's trust in the name of the opinion's opinion's name, and last, the administrative disposition pursuant to the above opinion's name should not be likely to seriously undermine the public interest or legitimate interests of a third party (see Supreme Court Decisions 200Du8684, Sep. 28, 2001; 2004Du13592, Feb. 24, 2006, etc.).

The court below rejected the plaintiff's claim that the disposition of this case violates the principle of protection of trust on the ground that it is not attributable to the plaintiff's assertion that, in light of the above circumstances alone, it is difficult to see that the defendant's public opinion that is trusted to the plaintiff, and even if the defendant's opinion is expressed publicly, it cannot be viewed that the defendant's opinion is justifiable even if it is not based on the result of consultation with the relevant department attached to the notification, it is not clear that the plaintiff's notification of the result of the above civil petition preliminary examination is not subject to the development charges of this case, and that the defendant is not subject to the development charges of this case.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is correct, and there is no violation of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the principle of protection of trust, as alleged in the grounds

3. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and the costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff who is the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Son Ji-yol (Presiding Justice)