Whether failure to give individual notice of the decision on urban planning constitutes justifiable grounds for non-compliance with the period of request for adjudication under the proviso of Article 18(3) of the Administrative Appeals Act (negative)

Since there is no provision that the determination of urban planning should be individually notified to the land owner, the reason why an administrative appeal was filed with the knowledge of the determination of urban planning immediately after the failure to comply with the adjudication period does not constitute a justifiable reason under the proviso of Article 18 (3) of the Administrative Appeals Act.

Article 12(4) of the Urban Planning Act, Article 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the Urban Planning Act, Article 18(3) of the Administrative Appeals Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 et al. (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Lee Gyeong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff (Appointed Party)

Gyeonggi-do Attorney Kim Tae-tae, Counsel for defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 91Gu15364 delivered on April 29, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed) are examined as follows.

Article 18(3) of the Administrative Appeals Act provides that a request for an administrative appeal shall not be filed after the lapse of 180 days from the date of the disposition: Provided, That the same shall not apply to the case where there is a justifiable reason, and Article 12(4) of the Urban Planning Act and Article 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that when an urban planning is decided pursuant to the Urban Planning Act, it shall be notified in the Official Gazette and the drawing of the urban planning determined in the Official Gazette shall be made available to the general public. Thus, the court below determined that the plaintiff and the designated parties dismissed the decision of the urban planning in this case on the ground that the period for appeal was expired after 180 days have passed from the date of the decision of the urban planning facility in this case. The plaintiff and the designated parties did not notify the land owner of the decision of the urban planning in this case of the fact that the urban planning in this case did not notify the land owner of the fact that the decision of the urban planning in this case was made immediately, and therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that this constitutes a justifiable reason.

In light of the records and relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the above recognition and judgment of the court below is just (see Supreme Court Decision 90Nu1717 delivered on January 11, 1991). There is no error of law as pointed out in the theory of lawsuit, and therefore, the argument is without merit.

In addition, all of the claims asserted by the Plaintiff as grounds of appeal are related to the merits of the instant case, and this does not constitute a legitimate ground of appeal against the judgment below which dismissed the instant lawsuit on account of its illegality.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)