In a case where the original urban planning change plan is not included in the original urban planning change plan, and the relevant land is included in the process of hearing the opinions of the Council and a resolution by the urban planning committee, whether the plan should again go through the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes

Before the head of a local government makes a decision to modify the relevant urban planning, he/she requested the Technology Corporation to conduct a basic investigation on the validity of the said modified plan, and completed all the procedures prescribed by the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as hearing opinions of the Metropolitan City Council and going through a resolution of the Metropolitan City Urban Planning Committee through a public inspection and hearing of opinions on daily newspapers. Where the provisions of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes are partially modified in the course of hearing the Council's opinions or the resolution process by the Urban Planning Committee, it is not necessary to require the interested residents or landowners to undergo a basic investigation, public inspection, and hearing of opinions, or to individually notify the interested residents or landowners of the opportunity to state their opinions. Thus, the original modified plan is included in the process of hearing the Council's opinion and resolution process by the Urban Planning Committee, and it cannot be said that there is any procedural defect

Articles 16-2 and 12 of the former Urban Planning Act (amended by Act No. 5115 of Dec. 29, 1995); Article 14-2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Urban Planning Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14899 of Jan. 19, 1996)

[Defendant-Appellee] The Head of Dong-gu Office (Attorney Han Jae-young et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Daegu Metropolitan City Mayor

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

As to the disposition for which the Defendant incorporated the No. 479m2 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant land”) in the site of urban planning facilities into the site of urban planning facilities in Daegu-dong, Daegu-dong, Daegu-dong, 385m2 (hereinafter referred to as “the instant land”) under Article 195-165 of the Daegu Metropolitan City Notice No. 1995-165 of August 24, 1995, the Defendant sought the revocation of the primary invalidity and the preliminary revocation.

1. Details of the instant disposition

The following facts are acknowledged if there is no dispute between the parties, or if Gap evidence Nos. 4, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2-2, 3, 4-2, Eul evidence No. 3-1, 2-2, 3-2, Eul evidence No. 5-2, 3, 4, 5- Eul evidence No. 7-2, 3, 5, 8-1, 2, 3, and 10 of Eul evidence No. 8-1, 2, 3, and 10 of evidence No. 10 are collected.

A. On December 29, 1993, pursuant to Articles 12 and 13 of the former Urban Planning Act (amended by Act No. 5115 of Dec. 29, 1995; hereinafter the same), the Defendant decided an urban planning with respect to the fourth cycle (Class 18 lines as in the first class 18 lines) and the fourth cycle (Class 5 lines as in the second class 3 lines as in the second class), which pass through the Daegu Dong-dong Branch under Article 193-235 of the former Urban Planning Act (amended by Act No. 5115 of Dec. 29, 1995; hereinafter the same), the fourth cycle line is 35 square meters in width, and the parallel line near the intersection of the fourth cycle line as in the 25th parallel to that of the 4th cycle of the 25th parallel.

B. In order to find problems and change the above urban planning decision in terms of traffic operation, economic feasibility, constructionness, etc., the defendant requested the 30th century to conduct a basic investigation on December 29, 194. According to the review of the Daegu Metropolitan City Urban Planning Advisory Council on the service result, it was difficult to set up a plan to change the urban planning to some sections on the fourth cycle line and the wave roads on February 25, 1995. The contents of the plan expand the road width from the 4th cycle lines to the 50th to the 75th to the 6th to the 30th to the 6th to the 6th to the 69th to the 6th to the 69th to the 6th to the 69th to the 4th to the 4th to the 4th to the 4th to the 30th to the 4th to the 30th to the 4th to the 2nd to the 4th to the 2nd to the 4th to the land boundary of the previous cemetery.

C. On May 3, 1995, the defendant presented an opinion that the above revised plan should be made available for public inspection and hearing opinions in accordance with the provisions of Article 16-2 of the Act and Article 14-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14899 of Jan. 19, 196; hereinafter the same shall apply) as to the above revised plan, and that the period for public inspection should be from June to February 22 of the same month, and that the public inspection place should be made public inspection plan of the Daegu Metropolitan City Urban Planning Bureau, the facilities plan of the city in the Daegu Metropolitan City, the urban development and branch office in the competent Gu office, the urban development and branch office in the Daegu Metropolitan City, and that the head of the Daegu Metropolitan City Dong-gu Office should include the land adjacent to the land of this case into the urban planning facilities (road or green zone) in order to ensure smooth traffic flow and urban landscape in the 4nd cycle line and the 386th place adjacent to the land of this case.

D. According to Article 12(1) of the Act on May 22, 1995, the Defendant discussed the opinion of the head of Daegu Metropolitan City Dong-gu, that it would be desirable to incorporate the instant land into urban planning facilities (road or green area), and presented his opinion that there is no problem in traffic flow even in the above modification plan, and that it is reasonable that the instant land should not be incorporated into a quasi-residential area as a quasi-residential area under the land use plan, but the City Council decided on May 27, 1995, when the instant building is located on the instant land, and it is reasonable to include the instant land in urban planning facilities for the purpose of protecting the mountain, along with the opinion that it is reasonable to include the instant land in urban planning facilities.

E. On July 31, 1995, the Daegu Metropolitan City Urban Planning Committee decided to incorporate the instant land into a road site at the second conference of 1995, which was held on July 31, 1995. On August 17, 1995, the Defendant: “The 4th cycle line, the bridge, and the cadastral approval” was designated and announced in the official gazette as the Defendant’s announcement on the 24th day of the same month in the official gazette as the 1995-165 (hereinafter “the decision to revise the instant urban planning”).

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) When the Plaintiff intends to include the instant land in accordance with the resolution of the Daegu Metropolitan City Council and the Daegu Metropolitan City Urban Planning Committee, which originally established a proposal to modify the urban planning including the instant land, the Defendant shall conduct a basic survey under Article 15 of the Act and Article 11 of the Decree, and establish a new proposal to modify the urban planning pursuant to Article 16-2 of the Act and Article 14-2 of the Decree, and hear the opinions of landowners and residents. Without these procedures, the decision to modify the urban planning of this case, including the instant land, was not followed by the procedures prescribed by the Acts and subordinate statutes, and the decision to modify the urban planning of this case, which is now at the present Y-type intersection, is null and void due to the disposal of significant and obvious defects, such as the fact that the instant decision to modify the urban planning of this case was made without the intention of execution, and even if the instant land is not included, it does not constitute a violation of Article 16-2 of the Act, including the instant land, and there is no reason to include the instant urban planning facility in the width of this case.

B. Defendant’s assertion

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that the decision to modify the urban planning of this case is in accordance with due process since the revision of the road corner under Article 13 of the Rules on Standards for Urban Planning to make it well known to the corner of the road under the provisions of Article 13 of the Enforcement Decree of the former Urban Planning Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 84 of December 17, 1996; hereinafter the same shall apply) may omit the hearing of opinions of residents pursuant to the provisions of Article 14-3 of the Decree due to the modification of minor urban planning facilities under subparagraph

3. Judgment of party members

A. As to the assertion that the invalidation is not invalidated due process

Article 12 of the Act shall be determined by the Minister of Construction and Transportation, ex officio or upon the application of a developer of an urban planning under the provisions of Article 11, after hearing the opinions of the local council concerned with respect to such matters as prescribed by the Presidential Decree. This shall also apply to an alteration of the determined urban planning: Provided, That this shall not apply to an alteration of minor matters as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, Article 15 (1) may, under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, investigate or measure the current state of population industries, the current state of land utilization, and other matters necessary for the formulation of the urban planning under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree. Article 16-2 (2) of the Act shall hear the opinions of the residents and reflect such opinion in the formulation of the urban planning if he deems it reasonable: Provided, That this shall not apply to such minor matters as requiring the national defense secrets or as prescribed by the Presidential Decree; Article 14-2 (6) of the Decree, Article 16-3 of the Act, while the head of Si/Gun intends to hear the opinions of the residents with respect to a minor urban planning facility within 7 days or longer than 7 days after the public announcement.

Meanwhile, Article 10 (1) of the Act provides that the authority of the Minister of Construction and Transportation under this Act may be delegated to the Mayor/Do Governor under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, and the Mayor/Do Governor may re-entrust the delegated authority with the approval of the Minister of Construction and Transportation, and the matters to be resolved by the Central Urban Planning Committee among the delegated matters where the authority is delegated pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (1) of this Article shall undergo a resolution of the Local Urban Planning Committee among the delegated matters. According to Article 6 (1) 2 of the Decree, the determination and alteration of the urban planning with respect to the road squares, such as this case,

In light of the above facts, prior to rendering the decision to modify the urban planning in this case, the defendant requested a Special Drawing and Technical Corporation to conduct a basic investigation on the validity of the above modified plan, and conducted a basic investigation on daily newspapers to hear the opinions of the Daegu Metropolitan City Council and go through the resolution of the Daegu Metropolitan City Urban Planning Committee. If the provisions of the related Acts and subordinate statutes are partially modified in the process of hearing the Council's opinions or the resolution process of the Urban Planning Committee of the Daegu Metropolitan City, it is not necessary to demand a basic investigation, public inspection, and hearing of opinions of the residents, or to individually notify the interested residents or owners of the land and guarantee the opportunity to state their opinions. Thus, the original modified plan does not include the land of this case, which is included in the process of hearing the Council's opinion and the resolution process of the Urban Planning Committee's opinion, and eventually included the land of this case in the process of a basic investigation, public inspection procedure, and even without hearing the opinions of residents. Therefore,

B. As to the assertion that it was unlawful by abusing discretion

According to the above evidence, the defendant decided the original urban planning of the 4nd cycle line and the 70th parallel parallel parallels, but found the problems of the 70th parallel parallels of the 70th parallel parallels of the 4th parallel parallels and the 70th parallels of the 70th parallels of the 5th parallels, which caused obstacles to flowing water, adjusted the route of the 4th parallels in the previous urban planning decision to the straight line, moved the intersections of the 4th parallels to the 6th parallels of the 30th parallels of the 25th parallels of the 25th parallels of the 20th parallels of the 4th parallel line to the 6th parallels of the 6th parallel. In order to increase the traffic volume of the 4th parallel line and the 4th parallel line, it is recognized that the change of the urban planning plan of this case to include the driver's needs in the urban planning facilities in order to protect the 2nd parallels, and there is no reason to view that the change of the plaintiff's property rights.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, since the disposition of this case is null and void or illegal, the plaintiff's claim seeking its revocation is dismissed in entirety, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jong-soo(Presiding Judge)