[1] Whether a landowner has a benefit to file a lawsuit seeking revocation of the approval of an urban planning project implementation plan

[2] The case holding that since the urban planning decision under the former Urban Planning Act is contrary to the amended Urban Planning Act, an implementation plan for the urban planning project may not be approved without the modified urban planning decision under the amended Urban Planning Act

[1] An owner of land included in an area where an urban planning project is implemented shall be subjected to expropriation due to the authorization of an urban planning project implementation plan, and the relation of land use may vary depending on how the urban planning project is implemented and the urban planning facility is installed even if his/her land is not expropriated. Therefore, an owner of land included in an area where an urban planning project is implemented

[2] At the time of the enforcement of the former Urban Planning Act (amended by Act No. 2291 of Jan. 19, 1971), only the width and extension of roads were determined at the time of the determination of urban planning, and the construction of roads in such a form as desired by an administrative agency is allowed. However, as the former Act was completely revised, Article 12(3) of the Urban Planning Act provides that the important standards for urban planning and the standards for urban planning facilities shall be governed by the Regulations on Standards for Urban Planning Facilities, and Article 16(1) and (2) provides that roads which are urban planning facilities shall be constructed only by urban planning, and the structure and installation standards for roads shall be governed by the said regulations. Since Articles 8, 10-2, 11, and 15-2 of the said Regulations are not subdivided, it is not always required to install new urban planning facilities as a general road by use and form, exclusive exclusive road roads, bicycle roads, high-speed roads, and underground roads, the amendment of the former Urban Planning Act does not necessarily stipulate any one of the Act.

[1] Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 30 (2) of the Urban Planning Act / [2] Articles 12 (3), 16 (1) and (2) of the Urban Planning Act, Article 16 (2) of the Addenda (amended on January 19, 1971), Articles 8, 10-2, 11, and 15-2 of the Rules on Standards for Urban Planning Facilities

[Judgment of the court below]

The head of Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (Attorney Kim Dong-hwan)

Seoul High Court Decision 91Gu21987 delivered on March 30, 1993

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. First point:

A. Article 30(2) of the Urban Planning Act provides that the authorization of an implementation plan for an urban planning project shall be considered as the project approval under Article 14 of the Land Expropriation Act. Thus, the owner of land included in the implementation area for an urban planning project shall be subjected to expropriation due to the authorization of the implementation plan for an urban planning project, and the relation of land use may vary depending on how the urban planning project is implemented and the urban planning facility is installed even in a case where his own land is not expropriated. Therefore, the owner of land

Therefore, the court below's decision that the plaintiff who was accommodated in the land included in the urban planning project implementation area has a benefit to dispute the validity of the approval of the urban planning project implementation plan.

B. In addition, the judgment of the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to confession, as alleged in the grounds of appeal, since the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to confession, since it did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. Second and third points:

A. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the following facts: the roads determined by the urban planning of this case are 8 meters wide, 432 meters wide, 926-17, Seongdong-gu, Seoul, 995-1, and the closing point is 8 meters wide, and the road to be installed under the implementation plan of the urban planning project of this case is 35 meters wide, and some of the roads determined by the implementation plan of the urban planning project of this case are 903-4 to 946-6 of the same Act, which are 35 meters long as the roads determined by the implementation plan of the urban planning of this case are extended to 903-4 to 946-6 of the same, and determined that the above disposition of this case was an exclusive road road of this case under Article 8 (2) 3 of the Rules on Standards for Urban Planning Facilities (amended by the Ordinance No. 522 of December 16, 192, hereinafter referred to as the "Rules on Urban Planning") as an unlawful disposition of the above general provisions of Article 8 (10-2) through 3).

B. However, Article 10-2(1) of the Act provides for the formulation and alteration of the basic urban planning, and Article 8(1) through (3) of the above Rule provides for the standards for the urban planning of road facilities. Thus, it cannot be presumed that the roads determined by the urban planning of this case based on each of the above provisions are determined as the general roads under Article 8(2)1 of the above Rule. However, according to the records, a significant portion of the extension of 432 meters from the extension of the roads determined by the basic urban planning of this case originally by the record can be known to be the general roads currently. However, the execution plan of this case cannot be presumed to be determined as the general roads for the passage of automobiles.

Therefore, the above judgment of the court below which held that the road determined by the urban planning of this case is presumed to have been planned as a general road is erroneous.

C. However, as at the time of the enforcement of the former Urban Planning Act (wholly amended by Act No. 2291, Jan. 19, 1971; hereinafter “former Act”), only the width and extension of roads at the time of the determination of urban planning was not subdivided, and it was allowed to build roads in the form that the administrative agency wants based on the determination. However, as the former Act completely revised, Article 12(3) of the Act provides that the important standards for urban planning and the standards for urban planning facilities shall be governed by the above regulations, and Article 16(1) and (2) provides that roads which are urban planning facilities shall be constructed only by urban planning, and the structure and installation standards for roads shall be governed by the above regulations, and since Articles 8, 10-2, 11, and 15-2 of the above regulations are merely those for the use and form of roads, exclusive exclusive roads, bicycle roads, high-priced roads, etc., to install new urban planning under the former Act and subordinate statutes, the amendment of the Act does not necessarily violate 17.

Therefore, it is illegal to authorize an implementation plan for an urban planning project to install an exclusive road on the land in this case without the Defendant’s prior decision to change the urban planning, and the conclusion of the court below that the above approval disposition is illegal is justified.

3. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)