logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2019.10.16 2019누36621
사업시행자지정처분취소 등 청구의 소
Text

1. The judgment of the first instance, including additional, modified and conjunctive claims, shall be as follows:

Reasons

1. On September 28, 2012, the Plaintiff purchased the instant forest in the auction procedure with respect to the 16,818 square meters of land E in the Subdivision-gu, Sungnam-si (hereinafter “instant forest”).

Around June 1995, B filed an application with the Defendant for designation of a project implementer of the Seongdong-gu Urban Planning Facility Project (C) (hereinafter “instant project”) and authorization for the installation of park facilities (hereinafter “instant project”), with respect to the size of 24,983 square meters of the neighboring land, including the instant forest owned by himself.

As the defendant rejected the application, B filed an administrative appeal seeking the cancellation and implementation of the return disposition with the Gyeonggi-do Governor.

The Gyeonggi-do Governor revoked the disposition of return on March 13, 1996 and December 31, 1996 and ordered the designation of the project implementer and the implementation of the authorization of the implementation plan.

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not perform the above ruling.

B applied for the implementation of the ruling to the Gyeonggi-do Governor on March 5, 1997.

On April 16, 1998, the Governor of the Gyeonggi-do designated a project implementer with respect to the C project as shown in attached Form 1 and authorized the implementation plan.

Accordingly, the defendant filed a petition with the Constitutional Court for adjudication on competence dispute against the Gyeonggi-do Governor on the ground that "the designation of the project implementer as above and the authorization of the implementation plan infringed on

On July 22, 1999, the Constitutional Court sentenced the decision that the part of urban planning among the designation of the project implementer and the authorization of the implementation plan infringed on the defendant's authority.

As a result, the urban planning road has lost its validity, and only the designation of a project implementer with respect to golf business sites and access roads thereto (hereinafter referred to as "designation of a golf business site project implementer") and the authorization of an implementation plan (hereinafter referred to as "authorization of a golf business site implementation plan").

On the other hand, it is about the project site for the above urban planning road establishment project and the project to establish the Sungnam Urban Planning Facility (Road-LN) on the F land in Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si.

arrow