(a) Whether an act of refusing a request that is not entitled under Acts and subordinate statutes or cooking that is entitled to demand the administrative act is an administrative disposition;

(b) Whether the refusal of an application for change of urban planning is an administrative disposition subject to appeal;

A. In order for an administrative agency to take an administrative disposition upon receiving an application from a citizen, a citizen must have the right to demand the administrative agency to perform an administrative act according to the application. If an administrative agency refuses to accept the application without such a ground and refuses to do so, the administrative agency shall not have any effect on the applicant’s right or legal interest, and thus, it shall not be subject to an administrative disposition.

B. Under the Urban Planning Act, there is no provision that a resident may file an application with an administrative agency for an alteration of the urban planning and its modification, and there is a change in circumstances in the administrative plan that requires long-termness and integration, such as the urban planning, once the plan is finalized, and thus, it cannot be recognized that the resident’s right to claim an alteration of the plan can not be recognized as an administrative disposition that is subject to appeal.

(a)Article 2(b) of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 19 of the Urban Planning Act, Article 12 of the Urban Planning Act;

A. (B) Supreme Court Decision 92Nu2394 delivered on May 25, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 1890). Supreme Court Decision 90Nu5597 delivered on February 28, 1991 (Gong1991, 1101), Supreme Court Decision 90Nu8428 delivered on August 9, 1991 (Gong1991, 2372), Supreme Court Decision 92Nu8712 delivered on January 15, 1993 (Gong193Sang, 739). (b) Supreme Court Decision 84Nu27 delivered on October 23, 1984 (Gong1984, 1858).

Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee

Simsan City

Daegu High Court Decision 93Gu570 delivered on October 6, 1993

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

In order for the administrative agency to be an administrative disposition upon receiving an application from a citizen, the administrative agency must have a right under laws or sound reasoning to require the administrative agency to perform an administrative act according to the request. If an administrative agency refuses to accept a request from a citizen without such ground and refuses to do so, it cannot be deemed an administrative disposition since it does not affect the applicant's right or legal interest. In addition, there is no provision that a resident can file an application against an administrative agency for an urban planning and modification thereof under the Urban Planning Act, and there is no change in circumstances in the urban planning and modification, such as urban planning, and in the administrative plan requiring long-termness and comprehensiveness, there is no change in circumstances after the plan becomes final and conclusive (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Nu2394, May 25, 1993; 89Nu725, Oct. 24, 1989; 84Nu27, Oct. 23, 1984).

In the same purport, the judgment of the court below that the defendant's refusal of this case cannot be viewed as an administrative disposition which is subject to an appeal litigation is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles like the theory of lawsuit. The argument is without merit.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)