2020Guhap86699 Action to nullify the invalidity of the urban management planning

*

*

may 13, 2021

June 10, 2021

1. All of the instant lawsuits are dismissed.

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

On August 8, 2019, the decision of an urban management plan (a district unit plan and plan) issued by the Defendant as Seoul Special Metropolitan City Notice No. 2019-260 on August 8, 2019 is invalid.

1. Basic facts

A. The basic urban planning (which falls under the basic urban planning under Article 2 subparagraph 3 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") established by the Defendant presents the basic direction of fostering the "maintenance of special status as the economic, administrative, and cultural center of Seoul, which may focus on the preservation of history as the center of culture in relation to the city (limited transfer) in Seodaemun-gu Seoul. The tasks of this study include the establishment of a separate basic management plan for the preservation of regional characteristics and historical and cultural resources within the Korea Transferability, and specifically include the systematic and comprehensive restoration of historical and cultural resources damaged in the era of development, and the preservation and utilization of modern historical and cultural heritage.

B. Accordingly, the Defendant separately established the Seoul historical city master plan, and as a third class, presents that the historical symbol and identity should be strengthened while maintaining its role as a center of administration, business, commerce, and culture for the surrounding areas, and that it should be created as a central space representing Seoul as a hub area with a view to the history and modern history of the Seoul land0-year history. Specifically, the objective of the “maintenance plan considering the preservation of major cultural properties, the restoration of historical history of the light of historical resources, the adjustment of the maintenance plan taking into account historical resources, the major historical values, and the creation of pedestrian-centered streets.”

C. According to such basic urban planning, the Defendant determined the district unit planning zone and plan [the district unit planning under Article 2 subparag. 5 of the Urban Planning Act, which falls under the district unit planning under Article 2 subparag. 4 (e) of the same Act], and partly modified matters. As a part of such urban management planning, the Defendant, on August 8, 2019, notified the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Public Notice No. 2019-260 (hereinafter “instant public notice”). This is intended to modify the urban management plan (district unit planning) in order to modify the infrastructure plan for the section, which is a major main main main main arterial road, to promote the transition of the monthly restoration of the e-mail, as well as the district unit planning (district unit plan) and the district unit planning and decision (revision) to the Class-II district unit planning publicly notified under Article 2013-79 of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Public Notice Mar. 21, 2013.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The plaintiffs asserts that there is a legal interest in seeking confirmation of invalidity of the instant notice, since the freedom of expression and environmental interest is infringed upon due to construction works for creating a luminous plaza that is conducted in accordance with the instant notice.

B. However, as seen in the basic facts, the instant notice constitutes an urban management plan as a district unit planning, and the installation of infrastructure, such as squares, constitutes an urban planning facility project (Article 2 subparag. 6(b), subparag. 7, 10, and 43(1) of the Act), an implementor of an urban planning project according to the implementation plan formulated by stages (Articles 85 and 86 of the Act), and a project implementor shall prepare and implement an implementation plan (Article 8(1) of the Act).

Since the construction of a luminous plaza is conducted in accordance with the subsequent implementation plan of the notice of this case, the freedom of expression and restriction of environmental benefits of the plaintiffs is in accordance with the implementation plan, which is a direct act causing it, and the previous notice of this case is not brought about.

C. On the other hand, Plaintiff ○○○○○○ is a non-corporate body, and all the Plaintiffs are located or residing outside the district unit planning zone pursuant to the instant public notice (see subparagraph 6). The Plaintiffs do not assert or prove that there is no possibility of infringing or threatening to infringe on any environmental benefits before and after the construction works, etc. within the scope of the grounds, such as the National Land Planning Act, or the environmental impact under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the construction works, etc., or the construction works, etc., within the scope of the environmental impact rights stipulated by the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes. It is insufficient to view that the Plaintiffs’ ground and related Acts and subordinate statutes are direct and specific interests individually protected, and there is no evidence to prove otherwise.

Ultimately, the notice of this case cannot be deemed to have directly caused the infringement of the plaintiffs' freedom of expression or environmental interest, and the plaintiffs cannot be deemed to have asserted and proved the infringement or threat thereof. Therefore, there is no legal interest to seek confirmation of the invalidation of the notice (Article 35 of the Administrative Litigation Act).

3. Conclusion

Since the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, it is decided to dismiss it and it is so decided as per Disposition.