Plaintiff 1 and four others (Law Firm Han-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Chuncheon Market

United Nations Co., Ltd. (Law Firm LLC, Attorney Credit Ba-in, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

May 2, 2012

Chuncheon District Court Decision 2010Guhap2164 Decided November 25, 2011

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The judgment of the court of first instance is revoked. It is confirmed that the authorization notice of the implementation plan of Chuncheon urban planning facilities (sports facilities: the United Nations Ebagoging Project Implementation Plan) publicly notified by the defendant on September 18, 2009 by the notification of Chuncheon City No. 2009-265 is invalid.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

This Court's reasoning, with the exception of the conclusion, is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following additions or modifications. Thus, this Court cites this as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The part that is added or used by this court;

○ The following shall be added to the last 16th part of the second 16th decision of the first instance.

- The Governor of Gangwon-do delegated the authority from the Governor of Gangwon-do (refer to attached Table 1 of Article 2(1) of the Gangwon-do Ordinance on the Delegation of Administrative Affairs) the Defendant designated the Intervenor joining the Defendant as the implementer of the above urban management plan on March 12, 2009, and publicly notified the Defendant’s designation as the implementer of the above urban management plan (hereinafter “instant designation disposition”).

○ Parts 7, 13, 8, and 9 of the first instance judgment shall be followed as follows.

- If Gap evidence Nos. 4-1, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 6, and Eul evidence Nos. 8-1 through 3 respectively, the overall purport of arguments was shown, the defendant's land suitability assessment guidelines (i) and 3-1-1-(ii) applied to the land suitability assessment guidelines of April 208, which were applied at the time of the defendant's land suitability assessment to the project site of this case are "where control areas are subdivided into conservation and control areas, production control areas, or planned control areas pursuant to Article 8 of Addenda of the National Land Planning Act," and the above land suitability assessment guidelines of 1-3-2 (b) of the above land suitability assessment guidelines are applied to the assessment system II when formulating a plan for the installation of urban planning facilities, and there was no level 3-2-1-2 (2) of the above land suitability assessment guidelines of 5.5-2 of the project implementation guidelines of the above land suitability assessment guidelines of 40 years or more, and there was no level 14 or more of forest suitability assessment guidelines of the present A forest suitability assessment guidelines.

Therefore, in the case of the instant project site area for the installation of urban planning facilities, there is no room for the application of the land suitability assessment guidelines I to the land suitability assessment guidelines, and only the assessment system II shall be applied. Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit on different premise.

○ The following shall be added to 3 pages 10 of the first instance judgment.

- It shows a variety of gradients between 0' to 29.8';

○ Part 11 of the 10th 10th 10th 10th 11th 10th 11th 1st 1st 2th 2th 3th 2nd

- With a comprehensive value of 451.83 points, a perfect score of 600

○ In the 11th sentence of the first instance judgment, the portion “the front vote” in the 11th sentence shall be corrected as follows:

- between 19.5 degrees and 26 degrees;

○ From 7th to 10th of the 14th of the first instance judgment, the portion “A landowner Nonparty 1 and 2 may recognize the facts” shall be corrected as follows:

- Nonparty 1, 2, and 3, the land owner injured on the registration of real estate, had already died on March 12, 2009 at the time of designation of the project implementer, but did not regard the heir as the land owner, and considering that Nonparty 1, 2, and 3 had been living on March 12, 2009, the total number of land owners in the project implementation district of this case can be recognized (it is insufficient to recognize the Plaintiff’s assertion that Nonparty 4 had already died at the time of designation of the project implementer,

○ The part of the first instance court’s 15 pages 2 through 3 is corrected as follows.

- In full view of the fact that the Defendant did not appear in the real estate registration injury and determined whether the Plaintiff met the requirements for consent of the landowner based on the nominal owner on the register, and that it cannot be deemed as a serious and apparent defect in the instant disposition for designation of the implementer, it is difficult to deem the instant disposition to be null and void as a matter of course due to its significant and objective defect in the instant disposition for designation of the implementer.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the disposition of this case is legitimate, and all of the claims of this case are dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in this conclusion, and the appeal of the plaintiffs is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Judge)

1) Clinical map means a map showing the current state of forests across the country, categorized by the Administrator of the Korea Forest Service into six permanent levels per ten years, according to the average age of forests, and at least four permanent levels means an area with at least 50 percent of the total possession ratio of standing timber for at least 31 years, as an area for standing timber.

2) Since the instant disposition aims at the separate legal effect between the instant disposition and the instant disposition independently, it is only possible to dispute the validity of the instant disposition only when the defect in the instant disposition is deemed null and void as it is significant and apparent.