2012Guhap1758 Revocation of Notice Disposition

1. A;

2. B

Plaintiff LLC (LLC) LLC et al.

Attorney Gyeong-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

The head of Seocheon-si Office

August 23, 2012

September 6, 2012

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

On January 6, 2012, the defendant's notification of the result of preliminary examination (no permission for construction or development) against the plaintiff A shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

The following facts may be acknowledged by adding the whole purport of the pleadings to each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, and Eul evidence No. 1 (including each number).

A. On December 26, 2011, Plaintiff A filed a prior request with the Defendant on December 26, 201, for a prior examination as to whether it is possible to grant a building permit and permission for development activities, in order to construct a multi-family housing of not more than four stories in Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-si C Forest and 23,710 square meters (the instant forest). Plaintiff B is the Plaintiff’s father.

B. On January 6, 2012, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff A of the impossibility of development activities upon consultation with the relevant department on the prior examination claim under the preceding paragraph (hereinafter “instant notification”).

2. Determination prior to the merits

Since the defendant's notification of the result of this case is not an administrative disposition which is subject to appeal litigation, it refers to an administrative disposition that is subject to appeal litigation, which is an act of an administrative agency's public law, such as ordering the establishment of rights or the burden of obligations with respect to a specific matter under laws and regulations, or causing other legal effects, and an act that does not directly cause legal changes in the legal status of the other party or other related persons, is not an administrative disposition that is subject to appeal litigation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Du10578, May 17, 2002).

The prior request for review and the notice of the result are made pursuant to Article 19 of the Civil Petitions Treatment Act, and it is difficult to view the following as a disposition subject to an appeal litigation.

(1) An advance ruling is a discretionary procedure for the convenience of civil petitioners, and it does not necessarily require the Plaintiffs to obtain a building permit or permission for development activities.

(2) Even if a civil petitioner is notified that it is possible as a result of the prior examination, it is not so granted a building permit or permission for development activities, but separately applied for a building permit or permission for development activities

(3) In cases under the preceding paragraph, the head of an administrative agency shall not process civil petitions by rejecting the notification of the result of the prior examination on any other ground except where the civil petitioner is responsible for the cause or force majeure or it is impossible to do so due to other special circumstances, but it seems that the administrative agency is bound by the previous public opinion list.

④ Although the Plaintiffs received the instant advance ruling notice that it is impossible for them to file an application for a building permit or permission for development activities, it does not mean that they cannot file an application.

⑤ Therefore, it cannot be deemed that there is any change in the legal status of the plaintiffs before and after the notification of the result of this case (in this respect, it is different from the case of the so-called "multi-stage administrative act" cited by the plaintiffs).

6. Meanwhile, Article 18 of the Civil Petitions Treatment Act provides for the method of appeal against the rejection disposition by an administrative agency on the civil petition, but it does not provide for the notification of the result of the prior examination.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, it is decided to dismiss it. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges anti-competence

Judges Kim Young-young

Judges Kim Jin-jin