Methods of public announcement of planned land to be reclaimed under Article 6 of the Land Development Promotion Act;

In the public announcement of prospective land to be reclaimed under the Land Development Promotion Act, it is sufficient to keep the development plan in the relevant Gu, Si, Gun, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, or Do and have it available for public inspection, and it is not necessary to keep it up to the Myeon office in the location of the land.

Article 6 of the Land Clearing Promotion Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Do Governor of Chungcheongnam-Nam

Seoul High Court Decision 65Gu223 delivered on April 7, 1966

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal No. 1 by the Plaintiff’s attorney are examined.

The Defendant’s assertion that the area is part of the area that does not belong to the area that is not the area that is the area that is the area that is the area that is the area that is the area that is the area that is the area that is the area that is the area that is the area that is the area that is the area that is the area that is the area that is the area that is the area that is the area that is the area that is the area that is the area that is the area that is the area that is the area that is the area that is the area that is the river under the Land Development Promotion Act is argued by the Plaintiff at the lower court. In addition, the Plaintiff obtained the permission from the Defendant on September 1, 1963, which was the river site from the former Governor of Jeollabuk-do, and thus, the permission obtained from the Plaintiff on October 1, 1962 was renewed by the above permission disposition by the Defendant. Accordingly, in cancelling the permission for the occupation and use of the river site to the Plaintiff, there is no way to revoke the renewed permission.

The second point is examined in the same reason.

In comparison with the original judgment with the record, it cannot be said that the original judgment did not believe the evidence of the theory in the original judgment violates the rules of evidence.

The third point is examined in the same reason.

According to Article 6 of the Land Development Promotion Act, the Mayor of the Seoul Metropolitan City and the Mayor of the Busan Metropolitan City or the Do governor shall publicly announce the matters prescribed in Article 5 of the same Act when the land to be reclaimed was determined pursuant to the same Article, and at the same time, when the public announcement is made, the owner of the land should also be notified. The river site in this case is not the owner of the land, and the plaintiff did not notify the plaintiff of the above matters after the determination of the land to be reclaimed. In addition, according to Article 13 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the Mayor of the Seoul Metropolitan City and the Mayor of the Busan Metropolitan City and the Do governor shall prepare the development plan and make it available to the public at the Si/Gun/Gu. However, there is no need to keep the land at the Myeon office in the location of the land and make it available to the public for public inspection. Therefore, the judgment of the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that there is no error in the procedure for the public announcement of the land to be reclaimed and there is no error in the plaintiff's opinion.

Therefore, the final appeal is without merit, and the costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the losing party and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices of the Supreme Court Dog-gu (Presiding Judge) Dog-Jak and Mag-gu Mag-gu