A. Whether the authorization of an implementation plan, which extends the implementation period, is invalidated after the authorization of the implementation plan of the urban planning project is invalidated even if the land acquisition procedure is not prior to the execution period (negative)

(b) Whether an authorization for modification of an urban planning project implementation plan is valid as a new authorization where the authorization for modification satisfies the requirements for a new authorization (affirmative);

(c) The case holding that the defect is not attributable to the cause of revocation, rather than the cause of invalidation of the authorization of a new project implementation plan by modified authorization, where it was omitted in the purport that some of the matters are the same as the previous matters while making a public announcement of modified authorization after the period of

D. Legal nature of the authorization of an implementation plan for an urban planning project and whether the revocation of a disposition of expropriation and ruling can be sought on the grounds of illegality in the public notice of authorization (negative)

(a) The executor of an urban planning project shall apply for adjudication of expropriation of the land owned by another person or to take over the land necessary for the urban planning project under a private contract within the project implementation period set forth in the authorization of the implementation plan of the urban planning project notified at the latest. If the acquisition procedure is not prior within the project implementation period, the authorization of the implementation plan of the urban planning project shall be invalidated, and if the procedure is not prior to the acquisition procedure, the authorization of the implementation plan of the urban planning project shall be deemed to have been extended

B. Since the authorization for modification of the implementation plan of the urban planning project is a disposition that establishes the authority to implement the urban planning project, it does not differ from the initial authorization. Therefore, if the authorization for modification satisfies the requirements for a new authorization, it shall have the effect accordingly.

C. Where some of the matters except the period of project implementation are the same as the previous announcement in the public announcement after the lapse of the project implementation period specified in the public announcement of the authorization of the urban planning project implementation plan, and where some of the matters are omitted, it can be known that the omitted matters were omitted to the same effect as the previous one, the defect in the above degree of procedure cannot be deemed as having been significant and obvious to the extent that the authorization of the new project implementation plan by the authorization of modification itself is deemed null and void, and it

D. The authorization of an implementation plan for an urban planning project is itself in the nature of an administrative disposition and is subject to an administrative litigation independently. Thus, as long as this is not null and void, a person claiming this disposition should seek the revocation thereof as the subject matter of an administrative disposition. The person cannot seek the revocation of an implementation plan for an urban planning project on the ground that there was an error in the public announcement of authorization of an implementation plan for an urban planning project by reason of the lack of dispute over the period of the lawsuit without disputing the prior disposition.

(c)Article 25(a) of the Urban Planning Act; Article 30(1) and (2) of the same Act; Article 17(c) of the Land Expropriation Act; Article 19(c) of the Administrative Litigation Act; Article 26 of the Urban Planning Act; Article 27 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 80Da3269 delivered on December 22, 1981 (Gong1982,177) (Gong1141 delivered on December 27, 198) (Gong1989,246) D. Supreme Court Decision 87Nu395 delivered on September 8, 1987 (Gong1987,1583)

Plaintiff 1 and two others

The Central Land Expropriation Committee

Attorney Lee Jae-ho et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant of Incheon Metropolitan City and the defendant joining the defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu1832 delivered on October 31, 1990

The part of the judgment below against the defendant is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

(b) the case is remanded.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

On the first ground for appeal

1. Article 30(1) of the Urban Planning Act provides that the Land Expropriation Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the expropriation or use under the provisions of Article 29 of the same Act except as otherwise provided in the same Act. Paragraph (2) of the same Article provides that the authorization of an implementation plan for an urban planning project under the provisions of Article 25 of the same Act shall be deemed a project authorization under the provisions of Article 14 of the Land Expropriation Act. Article 17 of the Land Expropriation Act provides that if a public project operator fails to file an application for adjudication under the provisions of Article 25(1) of the same Act within one year from the date the approval is announced, the project approval shall lose its effect from the following day after the expiration of the period, and the application for adjudication under the proviso of Article 30(2) of the Urban Planning Act shall, notwithstanding the provisions of Articles 17 and 25(2) of the Land Expropriation Act, be executed within the implementation period of the urban planning project as determined in the implementation plan, and the operator shall be deemed to have no effect of the authorization of the implementation plan within 20 days later than 16 days later.

2. According to the facts established by the court below, the head of Incheon Metropolitan City, which is the executor of the urban planning project in this case (hereinafter referred to as the "convenor") shall obtain the approval of the implementation plan of the urban planning project from the Ministry of Construction and Transportation, and make a public announcement of the approval of the implementation plan of the urban planning project from June 21, 1986 to December 20, 1987, which was the public notification of the implementation plan of the urban planning project from Incheon Metropolitan City, Metropolitan City, 1986 to December 20, 1987, but the public notification of the approval of the implementation plan of the urban planning project was made on April 20, 198, only from June 20, 198 to September 30, 198. The application for adjudication of expropriation was made on May 6, 198. Thus, since the intervenor did not file an application for adjudication within the implementation period of the urban planning project publicly notified by the above Minister of Construction and Transportation, the above approval of the implementation plan becomes invalid.

3. Therefore, the judgment below to the same purport is just and there is no ground for argument.

On the second ground for appeal

1. Furthermore, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the public notice of the change is the public notice of the new implementation plan, on the ground that (1) the location of the project site, (2) the type and name of the project, (3) the area or size of the project, (4) the project operator, (5) the project implementation period, other than the project implementation period, (6) the land, building location, lot number, land category and rights other than ownership, (7) the owner of the land or building and the address and name of the related person under Article 4 (3) of the Land Expropriation Act are omitted, and the public notice of the change under Article 1302 of the above Act cannot be deemed as satisfying the requirements for the authorization of the new implementation plan, and therefore, it is unlawful because the intervenor's application for expropriation on May 6, 198 by the above intervenor, and the defendant's ruling of this case was revoked on the ground that it was unlawful.

2. It shall be deemed that there is no difference between the initial authorization and the initial authorization in that the authorization for the modification of the implementation plan of the urban planning project publicly notified by the 1302 of April 20, 198 and the authorization for the modification of the plan for the urban planning project is also a disposition that establishes the authority to implement the urban planning project. Therefore, if the authorization for modification satisfies the requirements of a new authorization, it shall be effective. However, if the public notice for modification is omitted the public notice for the above items (6) and (7) under Article 27, Article 6, 7, of the Enforcement Decree of the Urban Planning Act as recognized by the court below, it shall not be deemed as a violation of the

However, from No. 5-1 and No. 2 (Official Notice) of the notification of July 21, 1986, Article 27 of the Enforcement Decree was already publicly announced in the public notification of the authorization of the implementation plan for urban planning projects under Article 983 of the notification of July 21, 1986. According to the notification of the authorization of modification under Article 1302 of the notification, the above matters of (i) through (iv) are the same as those of No. 983 of the above notification, and (v) are the same as those of (vi) and (vii) are the same as those of No. 983 of the above notification, and the remaining matters of (vi) and (vii) are the same as the notification of No. 983.

3. Meanwhile, authorization of an implementation plan for an urban planning project is in itself a part of an administrative disposition and is subject to an administrative litigation independently, and as long as this is not null and void, a person who asserts this disposition as illegal shall seek revocation thereof as an object of the administrative disposition. In the stage of the adjudication for expropriation of this case where the period of the prior disposition is over, but the period of the lawsuit is not over, the cancellation of the disposition for expropriation of this case shall not be claimed on the ground that there was an error as above in the public notice of authorization of the implementation plan for the urban planning project of this case as modified by the power of dispute over the disposition of this case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 87Nu395, Sept. 8, 197; 87Nu141, Dec. 27, 1988).

4. Despite this, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the authorization and public notice of the implementation plan of the urban planning project, which judged that the decision of this case, which was made by the application of the expropriation ruling based on the modification authorization, was unlawful and revoked, on the premise that the modification authorization of the implementation plan of the urban planning project of this case was defective as an implementation plan of the new urban planning project of this case.

Therefore, the part of the judgment below against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)