(a) Validity of a decision to revise an urban planning without conducting a basic survey;

(b) The case which rendered a judgment dismissing the claim for cancellation because the decision to revise the urban planning was unlawful, but its cancellation is not suitable for the public welfare; and

A. The purport of Article 15 of the Urban Planning Act to conduct a basic survey in making a decision to modify an urban planning is to prevent unfair infringement on the rights of the people, secure democracy and trust in administration, and to exclude arbitrary urban planning as well as to ensure a reasonable urban planning by rationally adjusting the separation of interests among many interested persons. Therefore, the decision to modify an urban planning without undergoing such basic survey is unlawful.

(a)Article 12(1) and (a) of the Urban Planning Act; Article 15(1) of the same Act; Article 11 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act; Article 4(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the former Urban Planning Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 516, Nov. 19, 192);

1.

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Dong-young et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Jin Chemical Industry Company

Head of Busan Metropolitan City;

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. However, the decision of urban planning rendered by the Defendant under Article 91-351 of the Busan Metropolitan City Public Notice on December 9, 1991 is unlawful.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The decision of urban planning rendered by the defendant on December 9, 1991 by the Busan Metropolitan City public notice No. 91-351 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the decision on this case;

1. The Busan Metropolitan City Mayor: The Busan Metropolitan City Mayor and the Busan Metropolitan City Mayor and the Busan Metropolitan City Mayor and the Busan Metropolitan City Mayor and the Busan Metropolitan City Mayor and the Busan Metropolitan City Mayor and the Busan Metropolitan City Mayor and the Busan Metropolitan City Mayor and the Busan Metropolitan City Mayor and the Busan Metropolitan City Mayor and the Busan Metropolitan City Mayor and the Busan Metropolitan City Mayor and the Busan Metropolitan City Mayor and the Busan Metropolitan City Mayor and the Busan Metropolitan City Mayor and the Busan Metropolitan City Mayor and the Busan Metropolitan City Mayor and the Busan Metropolitan City Mayor and the Busan Metropolitan City Mayor and the Busan Metropolitan City Mayor and the Busan Metropolitan City Mayor and the Busan Metropolitan City Mayor and the Busan Metropolitan City Mayor and the Busan Metropolitan City Mayor and the Busan Metropolitan City Mayor and the Busan Metropolitan City Mayor and the Busan Metropolitan City Mayor and the Busan Metropolitan City Mayor and the Busan Metropolitan City Mayor and the Busan Metropolitan City Mayor and the Busan Metropolitan City Mayor and the Busan Metropolitan City Mayor and the Busan Metropolitan City Mayor and the Busan Metropolitan City Mayor and the Busan Metropolitan City Mayor and the Busan Metropolitan City Mayor and the Busan Metropolitan City Mayor and the Busan Metropolitan City Mayor and the Busan Metropolitan City Mayor and the Busan Metropolitan City Mayor and the Busan Metropolitan City Mayor.

2. Whether the decision on this case is lawful

(a) A captain;

The plaintiff's representative did not conduct a basic survey as stipulated in Article 15 (1) of the Urban Planning Act, Article 11 (1) of the Enforcement Decree thereof, and Article 14 (2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Urban Planning Act when the defendant makes a decision to modify the urban planning in this case, but did not review the matters to be examined at the time of formulating the urban planning as to the road as stipulated in Article 9 of the Rules on the Standards for Urban Planning Facilities. Although the plaintiff consulted with Gisung University and military units, etc. that may cause damage to the road due to the modification of the plan, the plaintiff's factory in this case manufactures the product through several processes, so if a part of the plan is incorporated into the factory planning zone, the remaining process will cease to exist, so the plaintiff's factory will not be incorporated into the near company's factory in order to minimize the damage to the plaintiff company. However, the defendant did not accept it and the plaintiff's company did not continue to continue the factory in the above alteration plan, and the defendant asserted that the comprehensive service provider's decision was lawful.

B. Review of relevant laws and regulations

Under Articles 11(1) and 12(1) of the Urban Planning Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), as a matter of principle, the Minister of Construction and Transportation has to determine and modify urban planning, and Article 15(1) of the Act provides that the head of Si/Gun may investigate or measure the population, industry status, land utilization status, and other matters necessary for the formulation of urban planning under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, in order to develop urban planning. Article 11(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Urban Planning Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Decree") provides that when the head of Si/Gun intends to draw up urban planning under the provisions of Article 15 of the Act, he shall specify the situation and trends of population changes within the planned urban planning area, composition and development trend of industry, traffic volume, and other matters as prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation, and Article 11(2) provides that when the head of Si/Gun intends to modify the urban planning determined by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation, the head of Si/Gun shall make a survey and modification application.

The legislative intent of these provisions is to prevent unfair infringement on the rights-holder interests of the people, secure democracy and trust in administration, and exclude and valid urban planning without undergoing such basic investigation (see Supreme Court Decision 90Nu2178, Jun. 12, 1990; Supreme Court Decision 90Nu2178, Jun. 12, 199). In addition, Article 9 of the Rules on the Standards for Urban Planning Facilities provides that the matters falling under each of the following subparagraphs should be examined when seeking urban planning on roads within urban planning within urban planning zones, the correlation between the land use plan under subparagraph 1, 2, traffic accident and concentration and sharing status by traffic agency, the unity of traffic systems and traffic agencies connected to neighboring cities and regions under subparagraph 3, the formation of a proper method of systematic connection with the existing road network under subparagraph 5, the balanced application of traffic demand under subparagraph 6, the preservation of urban environment, creative ability and facilities under subparagraph 7, etc.

(c) Markets:

Furthermore, as to whether the Defendant had conducted a basic survey as stipulated under the above provision of the Act, the Defendant testified that the basic data was 1 to 4 in this case’s decision to modify the urban planning. Although the Defendant testified that he had investigated the basic data of the witness Hong Many, the Defendant first prepared the evidence No. 1 to 4 with respect to the major matters concerning the original urban planning decision before the modification by this case’s decision to modify the urban planning, the Defendant’s overall review of the contents of the original urban planning decision to the Non-Party Comprehensive Technical Corporation, which was before the modification by this case’s decision to modify the urban planning. In this case, the part of the planning road was changed to the front line and the new slope facilities were installed as a slope, and thus, it cannot be said that the above basic data cannot be said to have been found to have been found to have been unlawful as it did not make a basic survey as to the modification of the urban planning under the above provision of Article 1(2) of the Decree, but it cannot be said that there was no other specific data to use it as stated in the application for modification of the urban planning.

3. The cancellation of a decision on this case and whether it conforms to the public welfare.

그러나 앞서 든 을 제1호증의 1, 을 제2호증의 1,2,3, 을 제3호증의 1,2,3, 을 제4호증의 1, 을 제4호증의 4 내지 9, 을 제5,6호증, 성립에 각 다툼이 없는 을 제7호증의 1,2(고시관계서류, 고시문), 증인 홍만표의 증언에 의하여 진정성립이 인정되는 을 제9호증의 1,2,3(당초계획 및 변경계획비교도면, 노선선 형비교표), 변론의 전취지에 의하여 진정성립이 인정되는 을 제1호증의 2,3,4(보고서표지, 측량, 기초조사자료), 을 제4호증의 2,3(3단계 배후도로공람에 대한 의견), 을 제8호증의 1,2(도면)의 각 기재와 위증인의 증언, 그리고 이 법원의 현장검증결과에 변론의 전취지를 합쳐 보면 부산항 3단계 배후도로망을 건설하기 위한 도로설계를 함에 있어 기존의 경부고속도로와 이어지는 도시고속도로와의 연결도로가 예정되어 있지 아니하여 부산항 3단계 개발에 따라 신선대 컨테이너부두 등을 통하여 수출입되는 물동량이 경부고속도로나 남해고속도로를 따라 부산시외로 나가기 위하여는 컨테이너를 실은 대형차량들이 교통체증이 심한 부산시내 도로를 지나가야만 하도록 되어 있어 이를 피하기 위하여는 3단계 배후도로와 기존의 도시고속도로를 연결하여야 하고, 계획도로의 일부 구간이 군부대와 저촉되어 일부 도로의 선형변경이 불가피하여 피고는 부산시의 전체적인 교통체계를 종합적으로 고려하여 이 건 도시계획변경결정을 하게 된 사실, 앞서 본 바와 같이 피고가 변경결정에 있어 기초자료조사를 하지 아니하였으나 도시계획변경결정을 함에 있어 필요한 공람공고를 하여 주민들의 의견을 청취하였으며 피고가 기초자료조사를 하였더라도 근본적으로 황령산터널의 위치, 그리고 3단계 배후 도로가 통과하여야 할 도시고속도로의 지점, 군부대와의 저촉으로 인하여 변경되어야 할 선형이 정하여져 있고 위 도로부근의 지형이 산으로 되어 있어 원고 공장 부근에 경사로시설이 설치될 수밖에 없고, 원고 회사 공장대지의 일부는 원도시계획결정시에 이미 도로부지로 편입되어 있었으며, 원고 회사의 공장의 유기적인 공정을 파괴하지 않도록 자회사인 아진화학 쪽으로 8m 가량 옮겨 경사로시설을 하라고 하나 이는 남천동 쪽에서 황령산터널 쪽으로 이어지는 구간은 가파른 산의 암반을 잘라 내어야 하여 단순히 8m를 옮기는 것이 아니라 훨씬 많은 암반을 잘라 내어야 하며, 경사로시설 및 도시고속도로 아래로 통과하는 지점과의 유기적인 연결을 기하기 위하여 도로의 곡각, 노면의 균형 등 도로건설공학적으로 고려하면 이 건 도시계획변경결정보다 횔씬 많은 노력과 비용이 필요할 것으로 보이는 사실, 그리고 이 건 도시계획변경결정에 따른 공사는 1993년 연말까지 끝마칠 예정이고, 1993.6.21. 현장검증시에 이미 전체공사의 70% 가량이 마쳐져 있었으며 특히 남천동 쪽으로 상당히 많은 부분의 암반을 잘라 도로로 만든 상태이고 피고가 이 건 변경결정에 따라 원고를 비롯한 수용대상자들에 대하여 보상금을 지급 내지 공탁하였으며 새로이 원고의 주장대로 도로를 변경하게 되면 아진화학 쪽으로 거주하는 사람들이 신축한 건물을 헐어야 할 뿐더러 통행할 도로도 없어지게 되는 사실, 그리고 주변환경에 좋지 아니한 영향을 미치는 포르마린 등 제조업체인 원고 회사가 언제까지나 현재와 같이 도심지역에 계속하여 존치할 수 있을지 모르며 원고 회사의 이 건 도시계획변경결정으로 인한 손해는 토지 등 수용절차에서 금전으로 배상받을 수 있을 것으로 보이는 사실 등을 인정할 수 있다.

Considering these circumstances comprehensively, even if there is an error as seen earlier in the Defendant’s decision to revise the urban planning, the cancellation of the decision is not suitable for the public welfare.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant's decision to revise the city planning of this case is illegal, but the plaintiff's claim for this case is not significantly inappropriate for the public welfare, and as such, the plaintiff's claim to revoke it pursuant to Article 28 (1) of the Administrative Litigation Act is dismissed, it is specified in the order that the above decision is unlawful, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant under Article 32 of the same Act.

Judges Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Judge)