[1] The validity of the approval of the modification of the execution plan, which is granted to the operator of the industrial base development project under the former Industrial Base Development Promotion Act, is required as a new

[2] Whether a revocation of a disposition of expropriation may be sought or a confirmation of invalidity may be sought on the ground that the public notice procedure for project approval under the Land Expropriation Act was omitted (negative)

[1] The approval to revise the implementation plan for an industrial base development project under the former Industrial Base Development Promotion Act (repealed by Act No. 4216, Jan. 13, 1990) is a disposition that establishes the authority to implement the development project and thus, it is not different from the initial approval. Therefore, if the approval to revise is required as a new approval, it shall be effective. Even if there is no provision on the approval to revise the implementation plan under Article 8 of the same Act, the operator of the development project may change the approved matters after preparing the implementation plan and obtaining the approval from the Minister of Construction and Transportation. In accepting the land, etc. necessary for the implementation of the development project, the operator shall file an application for the decision within the implementation period of the modified implementation plan.

[2] Article 16 (1) of the former Land Expropriation Act (amended by Act No. 4231 of Apr. 7, 1990) provides that when the Minister of Construction and Transportation grants a project approval, he/she shall, without delay, notify the public project operator, landowner, person concerned and the relevant Do Governor of the purport, and publicly announce the name or name of the project operator, type of business, business place, and details of the land to be expropriated or used in the Official Gazette. If the Minister of Construction and Transportation omits the above procedure, it constitutes a cause for revocation that can be contested at the project approval phase prior to the project approval phase as a procedural illegality, but it is difficult to regard the project approval itself as a significant and obvious defect, and therefore, it is not possible to seek revocation or nullification confirmation of the disposition of expropriation on the ground of such

[1] Article 8 (refer to Article 17 of the current Industrial Sites and Development Act) of the former Promotion Act for Industrial Base Development (repealed by Act No. 4216 of Jan. 13, 1990) / [2] Article 16 (1) of the former Land Expropriation Act (amended by Act No. 4231 of Apr. 7, 1990)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 90Nu971 delivered on November 26, 1991 (Gong1992, 323), Supreme Court Decision 94Nu7386 delivered on March 3, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 162) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 87Nu395 delivered on September 8, 1987 (Gong1987, 1583), Supreme Court Decision 87Nu141 delivered on December 27, 198 (Gong1989, 246), Supreme Court Decision 92Nu584 delivered on December 11, 1992 (Gong193, 478), Supreme Court Decision 92Nu93939 delivered on March 9, 193 (Gong1993, 194, 193; Supreme Court Decision 93Nu294397 delivered on March 29, 194)

Plaintiff (Attorney Lee Jin-woo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Central Land Expropriation Committee

Seoul High Court Decision 99Nu 11020 delivered on May 24, 2000

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

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

1. The Act on the Promotion of repealed Industrial Base Development (amended by Act No. 4216, Jan. 13, 1990; hereinafter the same shall apply), which was repealed by subparagraph 2 of the Addenda of the Industrial Sites and Development Act (amended by Act No. 3755, Dec. 15, 1984; hereinafter the same shall apply), is a disposition that establishes the authority to implement the development project and accordingly establishes the authority to implement the development project. Therefore, the approval of the modification is not different from the initial approval if the new approval satisfies the requirements. Thus, even if there is no provision on the approval of the modification of the implementation plan under Article 8 of the same Act, the operator of the development project can prepare the implementation plan of the development project and modify the approved matters after obtaining the approval of the Minister of Construction and Transportation. In accepting the land, etc. necessary for the implementation of the development project, the operator shall file an application for the decision within the implementation period of the approved implementation plan (see Supreme Court Decision 94Nu7386, Mar. 3, 1995).

The court below held that since Article 10 of the abolished Industrial Base Development Promotion Act excludes the provisions of Article 17 of the former Land Expropriation Act (amended by Act No. 4231 of Apr. 7, 1990; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Article 17 of the former Land Expropriation Act provides that an application for adjudication shall be made within the period of implementation determined in approving the implementation plan, the operator of the industrial base development project shall obtain the land owned by others or apply for adjudication of expropriation within the period of implementation stipulated in the private law within the period of implementation stipulated in the approval of the implementation plan for the industrial base development project, and it is sufficient that the application for adjudication should be made within one year from the date the approval of the implementation plan is announced, and it is possible to extend the period of implementation by the public announcement of the approval of the implementation plan within 13 years from the date the approval of the first project implementation plan was made within 5 years prior to the date the approval of the execution plan was made within the period of execution of the construction project within 1984.3 years prior to the expiration date of the first approval of the implementation plan.

In light of the above legal principles and the records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just and there are no errors as alleged in the grounds of appeal, such as the misapprehension of legal principles as to the land expropriation provisions under the Land Expropriation Act and the Industrial Base Development Promotion Act.

2. Article 16 (1) of the former Land Expropriation Act provides that when the Minister of Construction and Transportation grants a project approval, he/she shall notify without delay the company's name or name, type of business, place of business, and details of land to be expropriated or used in the Official Gazette. If the Minister of Construction and Transportation omits the above procedure, it constitutes a cause of revocation that can be challenged at the stage of the project approval prior to the stage of the adjudication on expropriation as a procedural illegality, but it cannot be deemed that the project approval itself is a grave and obvious defect (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 87Nu1141, Dec. 27, 198; 91Nu2342, Jun. 29, 193). Accordingly, the judgment of the court below to the same purport is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as otherwise alleged in the grounds for appeal.

3. In addition, there is no other legitimate ground of appeal cited by the Plaintiff. Thus, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)