1. The case where the court below held that the defendant 1 and 1 other

Market for Public Shares

May 20, 1994

1. Each of the plaintiffs' claims is dismissed.

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

The defendant's revocation of the approval of moving-in in the agricultural and industrial complex to each of the plaintiffs on March 9, 1993 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition, etc. of this case

For the purpose of manufacturing and selling various kinds of electric wires and various electric appliances, the Plaintiff Daee Cable Co., Ltd. (hereinafter the Plaintiff Daee Cable Co., Ltd.; hereinafter the Plaintiff Daee Cable Co., Ltd.) is each incorporated company for the purpose of manufacturing electric wires and electric charging products, and each incorporated company for the purpose of manufacturing electric wires and electric charging products. On July 190, 190, it was difficult for the Defendant to move into the agricultural industrial complex designated as the agricultural zone in accordance with the implementation plan for agricultural and fishing village income source development under the Agricultural and Fishing Villages Resources Development Promotion Act, which was implemented in early July 1990, and applied for its approval.

(C) On December 28, 1990, the defendant approved the project plan for the above rural income source development project applied by the plaintiffs (approval for factory occupancy) and imposed the condition that if the first product is not manufactured within 2 years from the date of approval of the project plan under Article 10 (3) of the above Act and Article 10 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the above Act, the approval of the project plan is automatically cancelled.

Along with the approval of the business plan under the above (B) B/C, the plaintiffs are obligated to agree with the plaintiffs when they enter into a provisional contract on the sale of the factory site (10,000 square meters for the plaintiff large roof cable, 5,000 square meters for the plaintiff large roof electronic) in the above examination and industrial complex directly developed by the defendant and the defendant on February 8, 191 as the implementer of the above (2). (1) The sale price of the factory site shall be 30,405 won per square meter (1,005,128,490 won for the plaintiff large roof electronic, and 502,564,240 won for the plaintiff large roof electronic, Doz. 502,564,240 won for the construction of the factory site after completing the construction work of the factory site, and (2) the defendant violated the above construction contract and did not pay the price determined and settled by the construction method to the plaintiffs within the extent of 30% advance payment or 30% advance payment.

On November 20, 1991, the defendant notified the plaintiffs that the above sale price was added to 8.86% of the initial sale price (the amount of KRW 89,054,384, and the amount of KRW 44,527,192 for the plaintiff large roof electronic) and the amount equivalent to 20% of the total sale price (the plaintiff large roof electronic shall be KRW 201,020,000 for the plaintiff large roof electronic and KRW 100,510,000 for the plaintiff large roof electronic) by advance payment. However, the plaintiffs did not comply with the defendant's demand, despite the defendant's demand over several occasions.

On March 9, 1993, the defendant revoked the sales contract with the plaintiffs on the ground that the above advance payment, etc. was unpaid by the plaintiff, and at the same time, the above approval for the occupancy of the factory against the plaintiffs was revoked on the ground that the initial approval conditions were met.

【Premium】

The facts of without dispute, evidence No. 3 (Approval for Occupancy in Agricultural and Industrial Complex), evidence No. 4-1, 2 (Advance Payment), evidence No. 5 (Receipt), evidence No. 7 (Notice of Advance Payment), evidence No. 8 (Notice of Advance Payment), evidence No. 9-1, 2 (Notice of Approval for Execution of Development Project), evidence No. 3-1 (Notice of Change of Plan for Execution of Development Project), 2 evidence No. 4 (Advance Payment), evidence No. 5-1 (Advance Payment), 3 (Advance Payment), 4 (Advance Payment), 5 (Advance Payment), 6 (Advance Payment), 7 (Advance Payment ), 8 (Advance Payment ), 9 (Notice of Advance Payment), 10 (Notice of Advance Payment), 3 (Advance Payment), 4 (Advance Payment), 4 (Advance Payment), 5 (Advance Payment), 4 (Advance Notice), 5 (Advance Payment), 3 (Advance Payment) master Plan for 4 (Advance Payment) and 4 (Advance Payment).

2. Claims by the parties and relevant statutes

A. The parties' assertion

(1) The defendant asserts that the above occupancy approval is merely an act of selecting contracting parties to the above contract for the purchase of agricultural and industrial complex, and the disposition of this case revoking it is merely an act incidental to the cancellation of the sales contract for the factory site concluded between the plaintiffs and the defendant, and it is not an administrative disposition subject to appeal litigation. As to the merits of this case, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, and the disposition of this case is legitimate and reasonable in accordance with related Acts and subordinate statutes, and the disposition of this case is an administrative disposition subject to appeal litigation. (1) The defendant failed to complete the above construction site development project by December 28, 192, which is 2 years from the date of the above occupancy approval, and the defendant unilaterally failed to manufacture new products of the above business plan for the purchase of the above factory site by the defendant's delay of the above construction site, and thus, the above occupancy approval was made on the premise that the above contract for the purchase of new products of this case was made unfair by the plaintiff's project operator and the above business operator's cancellation of the contract.

(b) Related statutes;

(1) The Promotion Act on the Development of Agricultural and Fishing Villages (Act No. 3689, Dec. 31, 1983) provides that in order to increase the income of agricultural and fishing villages by attracting industrial and service industries in agricultural and fishing villages under Articles 3, 4, and 5, the Governor shall establish a master plan for the development of the income sources of agricultural and fishing villages in accordance with the main plan for the development of the income sources of agricultural and fishing villages as publicly notified by the Director of the Economic Planning Agency after deliberation by the State Council and approval from the President, and the head of the Si/Gun shall establish and publicly announce the master plan for the development of the income sources of agricultural and fishing villages including matters concerning the designation of the public zone and the type and scale of the moving industry in accordance with the above master plan. Article 10(1), (2), and (4) provides that the person who intends to carry on the development project of the income sources of agricultural and fishing villages by moving into the public zone designated by the head of the Si/Gun in accordance with the above implementation plan shall be deemed to have been approved within 2 years of the first project plan and no approval.

(2) After the enactment and enforcement of the Act on the Promotion of Agricultural and Fishing Villages Development (Act No. 4228 of Apr. 7, 1990), the Act on the Promotion of Agricultural and Fishing Villages Development (Act No. 4228 of Apr. 7, 199) abolished Article 2(1) of the Addenda, but Article 2(2) of the Act provides that the matters related to the agricultural and fishing village area under the Act on the Promotion of Agricultural and Fishing Villages Development (Act No. 4216 of Jan. 13, 1990) shall be subject to the previous provisions by the day preceding the enforcement date of the Act on the Promotion of Agricultural and Fishing Villages Development. The above Industrial Sites and Development Act (Act No. 4216 of Jan. 13, 1990) provides that the agricultural and fishing village area under the Act on the Promotion of Agricultural and Fishing Villages Income Development shall be considered as an agro-industrial complex under subparagraph 2(c) of Article 2 of the above Act, and the project operator designated as a sale price for the agricultural and fishing complex may be designated.

3. Judgment on the defendant's main defense of safety

(A) First, considering the Defendant’s main defense that the instant disposition is not an administrative disposition subject to administrative litigation, the facts of recognition as above, and relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the Plaintiffs prepared a business plan to the Defendant to move into an agro-industrial complex designated by the Defendant pursuant to the Act on the Promotion of Development of Agricultural and Fishing Villages Income Sources, and submit the business plan to the Defendant to operate an agricultural and fishing village income development project. After examining the validity of the business plan as to whether the project plan submitted by the Defendant conforms to the implementation plan for the rural income source development under the above Acts, it is the above approval to approve the above business plan pursuant to Article 10(1) of the above Act on December 28, 190.

(B) In light of the above, it is reasonable to view that the above occupancy approval is not merely an incidental option of contracting parties to the above contract, but also an administrative agency's act of selecting the above agricultural and fishing village income source development project in accordance with the above law, so that the defendant, as the administrative agency, can operate the above agricultural and fishing village income source development project within the above agricultural and fishing village income source development project in accordance with the above implementation plan, and at the same time, the defendant's act of establishing rights under the law and ordering the plaintiffs to bear obligations as to various matters, etc. arising from the plaintiffs' operation of the above agricultural and fishing village income source development project in the above agricultural and fishing village area, which constitutes an administrative disposition that is subject to administrative litigation, and therefore the above disposition of the defendant, who revoked the occupancy approval, is deprived of the rights established by

4. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Judgment on the plaintiffs' assertion

(1) As seen earlier, the plaintiffs asserted that the defendant's approval for occupancy at the time of the disposition in this case had already been extinguished due to the reasons attributable to the defendant who failed to construct the factory site by the commencement date of the development project, and that the disposition in this case is unlawful, since the plaintiffs' failure to move into the above agro-industrial complex was not attributable to the plaintiffs.

(2) Factual relations (the above arguments are examined).

① The Plaintiffs were established in 1972 or 1983 and continued to manufacture and sell electrical appliances, etc. for a long time until the date of the above provisional contract, and concluded the above provisional contract with the knowledge of (1) the sale price of the factory site under the above provisional contract, (2) the advance payment, (3) the matters concerning the cancellation of the contract, and (2) the matters concerning the cancellation of the contract.

② The Defendant, as a project operator on the above land within the above agroindustrial zone from December 22, 1990 to the end of August 1991 on the ground of the total area of 73,729 on the ground of the end of August 1991 and completed at least 95% of the construction work for the creation of an agroindustrial complex by receiving support from the National Treasury and local expenses from the National Treasury on the commencement of construction work for the creation of an agroindustrial complex; the construction of a factory site, etc. was completed on August 191, 191, which was originally scheduled to complete the construction work; and confirmed the construction site for the Plaintiffs under the above provisional contract; notified the Plaintiffs of such fact to the end of August 191.

③ While the construction cost of the factory site was increased by approximately 1.1 billion won compared to the initial estimate due to a change in the basic project plan during the said construction work period (the increased compensation cost for the purchase of land is only 66 million won, and most of the increased cost is the amount corresponding to net construction cost and construction supervision cost, etc. following the change in the basic design), the National Treasury or City/Do budget subsidies for the increased construction cost could not be received from the buyer in advance because the increased construction cost was not increased by the increased cost.

④ On November 20, 1991, the Defendant notified the representative of the company scheduled to move into the above agro-industrial complex to hold a meeting of representative of the occupant company in order to consult about the advance collection with the above contractor for the sale in the above agro-industrial complex. At the representative meeting, the representative of the Plaintiff Badong, the representative of the Plaintiff Badong, is selected and presided over the meeting, and as a result, the Defendant decided on February 29, 1992 the player amount under the above provisional contract to be 20% of the expected sale price of the above factory site and the payment period was determined as February 29, 192. On the same day, each of the above factory sites was notified to the policyholders

④ However, notwithstanding the above advance payment notice, the plaintiffs did not make any advance payment by the above payment period despite the above advance payment notice, and thereafter, the defendant extended the above payment period by June 30, 1992, and again extended by the end of July 30, 1992, and extended by the end of the three-lanes until the end of July 30, 192, but the above extension period did not express a clear opinion as to whether or not the above advance payment is occupied without paying it at all and by the above extension period as of February 28, 1993, and even if the above advance payment period was extended by the above extension period, the plaintiffs did not pay the above advance payment by the above expiration date.

⑤ On March 9, 1993, the defendant revoked the above sales contract with the plaintiffs on the ground of the above advance payment, etc., and revoked the above approval of occupancy with the purport that the plaintiffs did not enter into the above development project on the ground that "the above approval of occupancy was not clear until the above date after the approval of occupancy was made, or only the obstacles or meetings were provided to the promotion of the agricultural and industrial complex development project, such as requesting the waiver of occupancy or the merger of corporations, etc., and caused enormous hindrance to accounting settlement due to the failure of advance payment over a long period," and thus, the above approval was revoked.

【Premium】

Each of the above evidence, witness, witness sacrife, witness sacrife, witness sacrife, part of witness sacrife, witness sacrife (excluding part excluded from

Dismissal Evidence: Partial Testimony of Lee Jae-cheon

(b) Markets:

(1) First of all, as seen above, the defendant can find out that the plaintiffs completed the construction site of the Corporation and notified the plaintiffs until the end of August 1991, which was the initial construction completion date of the above factory site. Thus, the above assertion premised on the completion of the above construction work is without merit. Next, in light of the above facts, the plaintiffs were well aware of the procedures for the determination of the purchase price and advance payment under the above provisional contract, and the details of the above termination of the contract, and therefore, the circumstances for the increase in the purchase price or advance payment under the above provisional contract can be expected to occur, and it can not be seen that the plaintiffs failed to obtain an advance payment within the limit of 90 percent of the purchase price under the above provisional contract, even if the defendant completed the construction of the above factory site after the above provisional contract, and thus, it can be seen that the plaintiffs failed to obtain an advance payment within the limit of 9 percent of the purchase price under the contract or advance payment contract for the above construction work within the scope of 90 percent of the sale price for the above factory site.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims seeking revocation are without merit on the ground that the defendant's disposition of this case is unlawful, and each of them is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

June 3, 1994

Judges Gangwon-gu (Presiding Judge) Han-Jil-gu