logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2015.09.15 2013두17619
관광지 조성계획 승인실효확인
Text

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2, Article 54 of the former Tourism Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013) provides that the head of a Si/Gun/Gu having jurisdiction over a tourist destination and a tourism complex shall prepare a development plan and obtain approval therefor from the Mayor/Do Governor, and shall obtain approval from the Mayor/Do Governor

Since the approval of change of a plan for the creation of a tourist destination is a disposition that establishes the authority to implement the plan for the creation of a tourist destination, it is different from the initial approval. Therefore, if the approval of change made after the period of project implementation specified in the plan for the creation of a tourist destination substantially changes the main part of the plan and satisfies the requirements

The lower court determined that, for the purpose of developing C tourist resorts on December 26, 1991, the first approved and publicly notified a plan to create tourist resorts in the manner of development by private sector from around 1992 to December 30, 205, where the project implementer I Co., Ltd. and the project period were to be from around 1992 to around December 30, 2005, and the development plan to change the project period to “preliminary Defendant” to “from 1992 to 2015,” the development plan to change the project period to “from 1992 to 3.00,” and that the first approval to change and publicly notified it on May 15, 2012 was invalid regardless of whether the first approval was invalidated because the approval to change the main portion of the first development plan in the instant case was not different from the approval to the new development plan, and thus, the claim for confirmation of invalidation is unlawful.

Examining the aforementioned legal principles and records in light of the record, the lower court.

arrow