Whether or not a Do Governor may dispute the approval of an urban planning project under Article 24 of the Urban Planning Act

In accordance with Article 24 of the Urban Planning Act, the Governor of Jeollabuk-do, a supplementary intervenor, approved the permission for the implementation of urban planning projects in the preceding week market, which is the project implementer of the Jeonju Central Market Service, which is the defendant assistant intervenor, even if the plaintiffs suffered property damage, this is a de facto interest due to the above approval disposition and cannot be deemed a direct and specific interest due to the above approval disposition. Therefore, there is no benefit

Article 10 of the Urban Planning Act, Article 24 of the Urban Planning Act

Supreme Court Decision 80Nu204 delivered on October 27, 1980, 80Nu204 delivered on October 27, 1980 (Supreme Court Decision 28No. 12582 Decided 12582, Supreme Court Decision 28No. 90 delivered on March 90, 200, Article 9 (1) 173 of the Addenda to the Promotion of Agricultural Community Modernization, Court Gazette 6472

Plaintiff 1 and 39 others

Governor of Jeollabuk-do

All of the plaintiffs' lawsuits are dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The defendant's approval disposition for the implementation of the urban planning project (the Jeonju City Mayor) in the Jeonju-si area of Jeollabuk-do, No. 4431-1816, July 2, 1980 by the defendant against the plaintiffs shall be revoked.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

1. The gist of the plaintiffs' claim is about 30 years prior to the above 4th anniversary of the above 30-year urban planning project, the central market is a permanent market established by the preceding 38-1 site and its neighboring land at about 2,800, and the plaintiffs have been engaged in construction and commercial construction on the sites owned by the plaintiffs outside the above market, such as the attached drawing, and the defendant was away from the above market and the above land owned by the plaintiffs, and this is the market for the above 4th anniversary of the above 3th anniversary of the above 4th urban planning project's implementation plan's public safety and order development purpose, the above 1th of July of the same year, the above 4th of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 30th of the 1st of the 2nd of the 30th of the 1st of the 1st of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 3th of the 1st of the 3th of the above urban planning project.

2. On the other hand, the facts that the defendant decided and announced the above urban planning facilities and the facts that the previous market permission was approved by the operator of the above prosperity are not disputed between the parties, but the plaintiffs' assertion that the above decision was unlawful does not seem to be unlawful even if the defendant made the above decision on June 5, 1980 as alleged by the above plaintiffs. According to the plaintiffs' assertion, the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit seeking cancellation against the above decision with the Minister of Construction and Transportation on June 5, 1980, but they were dismissed, and they did not raise any objection against it. Thus, the above decision becomes final and conclusive, and the plaintiffs cannot seek cancellation of the above project approval for the reason of illegality, and according to Article 24 of the Urban Planning Act, a person who is not an administrative agency can implement the urban planning project with the permission of the head of the Si/Gun, and the head of the Si/Gun, as a matter of principle, should obtain approval from the Minister of Construction and Transportation in advance, and it can not be acknowledged that the above disposition violates the above legal interests of the plaintiff's right to receive approval.

3. If so, the plaintiffs are not qualified as plaintiff in the lawsuit of this case and thus, they are dismissed all of the lawsuits of this case without any further determination as to the remaining points, and they are decided as per Disposition by applying Article 14 of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation costs.

Judges Man-soon (Presiding Judge) Lee So-young