The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The urban planning sets the criteria for activities to realize order at a certain point in the future by comprehensively coordinating administrative means related to one another in order to achieve specific administrative objectives, such as construction, maintenance, improvement, etc., on the basis of a professional or technical judgment on urban policies, and the administrative body has a relatively broad freedom in drafting and determining a specific urban planning;

However, the freedom of formation of an administrative body cannot be deemed unlimited, and in urban planning, there is a limitation that the interests of relevant persons should be fairly compared not only to public interests, private interests, but also between public and private interests. Thus, in a case where the administrative body, when formulating and determining urban planning, did not provide a balance of interests at all, omitted matters to be included in the subject of consideration of the balance of interests, or did not lack legitimacy and objectivity even though it imposed a balance of interests, the determination of urban planning can be deemed to be unlawful due to the defect in the balance of interests.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Du5474, Mar. 10, 2005; 2012Du2467, Jul. 10, 2014). Such legal doctrine equally applies to cases where a resident who owns land, etc. in an urban planning facility zone files an application for alteration of an urban planning facility with the authority to determine urban planning facilities for which a long period has not been executed, and where a decision-making authority determines whether to accept such application and modify an urban planning facility (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Du5806, Jan. 12, 2012). Meanwhile, any administrative disposition may be evaluated as illegal as

Even if the administrative disposition is revoked in an appeal litigation or later, it cannot be determined that the administrative disposition is a tort due to the intention or negligence of the public official immediately by res judicata, and that it constitutes a tort.