The local government that reverts the reclaimed land of 2014°620 Southern-do, Chungcheongnam-do to the extent that the reclaimed land belongs to the local government.

. Revocation of a decision.

Maol City

The Minister of Government Administration

Seocheon-gun

August 27, 2015

September 24, 2015

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part resulting from the participation.

On July 23, 2014, the Defendant revoked the decision that the local government shall belong to the local government equivalent to the north part of the line connecting the reclaimed land corresponding to the point indicated in the annexed drawing Nos. 1 through 13 among the reclaimed land of the sections of the sections of the building in the Southern-do, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, and that the local government shall belong to the south-do, Chungcheongnam-do.

1. Details and summary of the decision of this case

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the whole purport of the pleadings in Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 3, Gap evidence 4, Gap evidence 9-2, Gap evidence 11-1 through 5, Gap evidence 13-1, 2 and 3.

A. The progress of the instant project

On January 24, 1985, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, approved the reclamation of public waters on 11,913,69.5 square meters of public waters located between Chungcheongnam-do and Seocheon-gun, Chungcheongnam-do (the area of public waters was 19,100,000 square meters at the beginning and later changed as above; hereinafter referred to as "the reclaimed land of this case"). The project was implemented to reclaim public waters of the Southern-do, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do (hereinafter referred to as "the project of this case").

From August 7, 1985 to July 16, 2008, the instant project was implemented. As a result, the instant reclaimed land and its appurtenant facilities were newly built and installed, and in the process, the topography, such as an artificial dysium protection and an artificial dysium protection between the tide embankment and reclaimed land, and an artificial dysium connecting the existing river, such as the ethical dysium protection and the instant dysium protection and the instant dysium.

B. Although the application for the determination on the reversion of reclaimed land by the Minister for Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries was completed in July 2008, the determination on the reversion of the instant reclaimed land was delayed due to differences in opinions between Bocheon-gun and Bocheon-gun on the reversion of the instant reclaimed land. On around 2009, Bocheon-si concluded an agreement with the Korea Rural Community Corporation, the authorized administrator of the reclaimed land of this case, on a temporary basis, to allow each resident to cultivate the instant reclaimed land, and to pay the usage fee for the land to the Korea Rural Community Corporation, and developed the land thereafter.

After that, on May 8, 2012, the Minister for Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries filed an application with the Defendant for the determination of the local government to which the reclaimed land belongs for various administrative dispositions, such as inspection of completion of the reclaimed land and registration of cadastral records, and the Defendant announced such application by the Minister for Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries through posting it on the Defendant’s website (No. 2012-168 of the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs notice) from May 11, 2012 to May 31, 2012 and notified the Defendant that local governments, institutions, individuals, etc.

(c) Deliberation and resolution by the Central Dispute Mediation Committee of a Local Government;

The "Local Government Central Dispute Mediation Committee(hereinafter referred to as the "Committee") under the jurisdiction of the defendant was followed by the procedures such as the statement of opinion of the relevant local government in the process of deliberation for the determination of attribution of reclaimed land, and in that process, the following measures were presented: ‘The National Dispute Mediation Committee for Local Governments (hereinafter referred to as the "Committee for Local Governments") to provide the criteria for the natural topography and artificial structures (the central status of artificial waterways which link the subsidiary, e.g., and the two islands) within the reclaimed land of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "Seocheon-gun Military Committee") and the criteria for the boundary of temporary cultivation land within the reclaimed land of this case (hereinafter referred

On June 16, 2014, the Committee reviewed each plan, and decided to determine the reversion of reclaimed land according to the Seocheon-gun, in consideration of the following circumstances:

(1) It is reasonable to keep boundaries between local governments as boundaries that guarantee the clarity and easiness of boundary classification, and the continuity of objective awareness, such as "road newly formed as a result of reclamation works, etc., river, waterway, bridge, etc.," and "location of natural geographical features and artificial structures, such as bridges."

② In a case where the boundary between both local governments is set on the basis of the boundary of a temporary arable land that was temporarily implemented after the completion of a reclamation project, the boundary between the two local governments may be set on the basis of a duct, etc., and it can be said that a relatively solid bridge, road, waterway, etc. is better than the duct between the ducts, which is easy to be modified or damaged.

3. If a local government determines reclaimed land according to the above criteria, convenience such as traffic relations with neighboring local governments and accessibility from outside will also be increased, and it is anticipated that this will also be in terms of administrative efficiency in the future.

D. The defendant's decision of this case

On July 23, 2014, the Defendant rendered the instant decision in accordance with the Committee’s resolution, as stated in the purport of the claim, and notified the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s supplementary intervenor on the same day.

2. Judgment on the merits

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Defendant’s exercise of discretionary power over the determination on the reversion of reclaimed land must appropriately balance the interests of the relevant local governments and their residents at issue. However, the determination on the reversion of reclaimed land of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of discretionary power by omitting, omitting, or omitting, the comparative balancing factors of such interests balancing, or by lacking objectivity of legitimacy.

① Since most of the reclaimed land of this case is used as farmland, the farmland division is based on the boundary of the land temporarily cultivated as seen earlier, the determination on attribution of reclaimed land according to different standards would interfere with the efficient utilization of farmland (effective utilization of new land).

It is more reasonable to keep the boundary of temporary arable land on the basis of the current status of the temporary arable land according to the Bosa City more reasonable than on the basis of natural topography and artificial structures (a clear aspect of boundary setting).

③ Until now, the provision of administrative services has been made for a considerable period according to the current state of temporary cultivation land. Accordingly, the decision of attribution of reclaimed land would impair efficiency of administration (in terms of efficiency of local administration).

(4) It is more convenient for residents to follow the current state of temporary cultivation land in light of the traffic relationship between reclaimed land and neighboring local governments, accessibility from outside, and existing land cultivation relationship (the convenience aspect of residents’ residential and living).

⑤ In light of the scale of expenses incurred by the Plaintiff for the management expenses of reclaimed land and its financial losses from the completion of the construction work on reclaimed land of this case, the determination on the reversion of reclaimed land, the purpose of which is to reduce farmland within the Plaintiff’s zone compared to the current status of temporary reclaimed land, is unreasonable (the local financial losses aspect of

B. The Minister of the Interior has relatively broad freedom to form a local government to which reclaimed land belongs pursuant to Article 4(3) of the Local Autonomy Act. However, there is a restriction that the Minister of the Interior has to compare and take into account relevant interests, such as efficient use of new land, clarity of boundary, efficiency of local administration, convenience in residential life and business of residents, etc. Therefore, in cases where the Minister of the Interior and Home Affairs completely fails to carry out such balancing of interests, or omits matters that should be included in consideration of the balancing of interests, or where there is lack legitimacy and objectivity despite balancing of interests, the determination of the local government to which the reclaimed land belongs shall be deemed unlawful as it deviates from and abused discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do73, Nov. 14, 2013).

According to the facts and evidence as seen earlier, the Defendant’s determination is reasonable in light of the following: (a) based on the nature type and artificial structure within the reclaimed land in this case’s case’s standard is to ensure clarity and continuity of the boundary rather than based on the boundary of temporary cultivation land; and (b) it appears that the Defendant made the instant determination based on such standard seems to be more favorable in terms of the efficient use of new land in both local governments, efficiency of administration, residents’ residential life and convenience in their occupation; and (c) the Defendant’s determination is reasonable in light of the topography and location of the reclaimed land in this case’s case’s area and the existing local government’s area; and (d) the use status of the reclaimed land in this case’s area; and (e) there are no other materials to view that it is reasonable to determine the boundary only by determining the boundary according to the Boh City’s area asserted by the Plaintiff; and (e) the aspect of the financial loss of the local government’s claim by the Plaintiff is merely about

Examining these circumstances in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, it is difficult to view the instant decision as a case where the Defendant did not at all the comparison of the public and private interests related to the instant decision, or omitted matters to be included in the subject of consideration of the balancing, or where it did so but lacks legitimacy and objectivity. Thus, the instant decision does not constitute an abuse of discretionary authority.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff including the part resulting from the participation in the lawsuit. It is decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices

Justices Cho Jong-hee, Justice Cho Hee-hee

Chief Justice Park Sang-hoon

Justices Park Sang-ok

A person shall be appointed.