Kudong case Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Jeon-soo, Attorney Finding-sub et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Chungcheongbuk-do Administrative Appeals Commission

Han-gu Construction Co., Ltd. (Attorney Kim Byung-jin, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

April 29, 2015

Cheongju District Court Decision 2014Guhap1125 Decided November 13, 2014

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. The total cost of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the cost of supplementary participation.

1. Purport of claim

On June 30, 2014, the Defendant revoked a ruling revoking the return of the application for approval for modification of the housing construction project plan for the head of Jincheon-gun on June 30, 2014.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The plaintiff's lawsuit shall be dismissed first, and the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed first and second.

1. Details of ruling;

This part of the judgment of this court is the same as the above part of the judgment, except where the part of the judgment of this court "1............" in the part of the judgment of this court "2............., the part of the judgment of this court "1, 17, 3, 11, 14, 4, 1, 4, 1, 5, and 6 " Hanmae Construction" as "the defendant's supplementary intervenor" is the same as the above part of the judgment of this court. Thus, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

The decision of this case seeking cancellation is not a direct change in the contents of the project plan of this case by the defendant, who is the ruling authority, but a rejection disposition of this case on the ground of lack of evidentiary documents, and thus is revoked. Accordingly, the decision does not automatically accept the application for modification approval of the project plan of this case by reason of the fact that the decision was rendered on July 21, 201, but only before the rejection disposition of this case, the defendant's supplementary intervenor returned to the state of the application for modification approval of the project plan of this case. The defendant's supplementary intervenor, who is the disposition authority, is obligated to take a disposition in accordance with the purport of the decision of this case pursuant to Article 49 (2) of the Administrative Appeals Act. However, the defendant's supplementary intervenor's application for modification approval of the project plan of this case is not necessarily required to accept the application for modification approval of the project plan of this case. Ultimately, the modification approval of the defendant's supplementary intervenor on the ground that it was separate from the decision of this case, and even if the plaintiff's aforementioned decision becomes final and conclusive, it cannot be viewed as a legal interest.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is dismissed in an unlawful manner, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, so the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked and the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed as per Disposition.

Judges Landscaping (Presiding Judge)