[1] Article 13(3) of the Special Act on the Construction of Multifunctional Administrative City in Yeongi-Gongju Area for Follow-up Measures for New Administrative Capital, which provides that a Mayor/Do Governor shall consult with the Administrator of the Agency for the approval of a project plan, and the legal nature of the above "consultation"

[2] The legal nature of the provision of Article 17(3) of the Housing Act (=the provision of decoration)

[3] The legal nature of the approval of the housing construction project plan under Article 16 of the Housing Act (=the discretionary act) and whether the return or non-permission can be decided on the application for approval as necessary for public interest (affirmative)

[4] The case holding that it is difficult to view that an application for the approval of the housing construction project plan in the site designated as an area adjacent to the multifunctional administrative city was made within the scope necessary for public interest purposes such as smooth promotion of the construction of the multifunctional administrative city, and that the Administrator of the Administrative City Construction Agency’s notification of the result of consultation to lower the floor area ratio, or to comply with the development density standard of the urban management plan to be formulated later, taking into account the content

[1] In light of the text and contents of the Special Act on the Construction of Multifunctional Administrative City in Yeongi-Gongju Area for Follow-up Measures for New Administrative Capital, Article 14(2), Article 60(2) and (3), and Article 13(5) of the same Act, the purpose of Article 13(3) of the same Act is to provide the Administrator of the Agency for Construction of Multifunctional Administrative City with the authority to manage development activities in the surrounding area after consultation with the Mayor/Do Governor having jurisdiction over the surrounding area so that the construction of the Multifunctional Administrative City can be promoted smoothly, and therefore, the "consultation" under the above provision should be interpreted as the consent of the Administrator of the Multifunctional Administrative City Construction Agency.

[2] Article 17(3) of the Housing Act provides that when a Mayor/Do Governor submits a document on approval of a housing construction project plan to the head of the relevant administrative agency, the head of the relevant administrative agency shall present his/her opinion within 30 days from the date on which the request for consultation is received. However, the above provision is not applicable to the general rule, and even if it is not so, the above provision is merely a decoration provision that allows the relevant administrative agency to conduct the consultation as soon as possible, and it cannot be deemed a mandatory provision or an effective provision. Thus, the rejection disposition of the application for the approval of the housing construction project plan cannot be deemed unlawful on the ground that the head of the relevant administrative city construction authority submitted his/her opinion exceeding 30 days from

[3] The approval of the housing construction project plan under Article 16 of the Housing Act is a so-called beneficial administrative disposition that involves the effect of giving rights and interests to the other party, unless otherwise stipulated in the Act and subordinate statutes, it belongs to the discretionary act of the administrative agency, and the plan for the housing construction project that intends to obtain such approval is in conflict with the restrictions stipulated in the relevant Act and subordinate statutes, and if it is necessary for public interest without any such restrictions, the disposal authority may return it to

[4] The case holding that it is difficult to view that an application for the approval of the housing construction project plan in the site designated as an area adjacent to the multifunctional administrative city was made within the scope necessary for the public interest purpose of the smooth promotion of the construction of the multifunctional administrative city, and that the Administrator of the Agency of the Multifunctional Administrative City gave notice of the result of consultation to lower the floor area ratio or to comply with the development density standard of the urban management plan to be formulated later, taking into account the content

[1] Articles 13(3) and (5), 14(2), and 60(2) and (3) of the Special Act on the Construction of Administrative City in Yeongi-Gongju Area for Follow-up Measures for New Administrative Capital; Article 4 subparag. 2(b) of the Enforcement Decree of the Special Act on the Construction of Administrative City in Yeongi-Gongju Area for Follow-up Measures for New Administrative Capital / [2] Articles 16 and 17(3) of the Housing Act / [3] Article 16 of the Housing Act / [4] Article 13(3) of the Special Act on the Construction of Administrative City in Yeong-Gongju Area for Follow-up Measures for New Administrative Capital; Article 27 of the Administrative Litigation Act

[2] Supreme Court Decision 95Nu10877 delivered on August 20, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 2874) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 2004Du10883 Delivered on April 15, 2005 (Gong2005Sang, 754)

E.C. (Law Firm C.S., Attorneys Kim Jae-hwan, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Do Governor of Chungcheongnam-Nam (Attorney Cho Yong-hoon, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

The Administrator of the National Agency for Multifunctional Administrative City Construction (Attorney Cho Yong-hoon, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Daejeon District Court Decision 2007Guhap674 Decided July 11, 2007

December 6, 2007

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. The total cost of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant's application for the approval of the housing construction project plan filed against the plaintiff on January 31, 2007 is revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 27, 2005, the Plaintiff, a corporation operating a housing construction project, filed an application with the Defendant for approval of the project plan to construct 12/630 apartment units on the land (hereinafter “instant application”). The said housing construction project plan was modified to the effect that the construction project site area was 52,848 square meters, the actual use area was 39,609.84 square meters, the total floor area was 109,819.93 square meters, the floor area was 21.18%, the floor area was 3-17 square meters or 651 units of apartment units (hereinafter “instant project plan”).

B. On January 31, 2007, the Defendant rejected the instant application for the following reasons (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

(1) At the same time, the applicant’s project plan shall establish a Class 1 district unit plan in accordance with the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”) with a size of not less than 10,00 square meters. At the same time, as an area surrounding the multifunctional administrative city (hereinafter “administrative city”), a consultation with the head of the Multifunctional Administrative City Construction Agency (hereinafter “Administrator”) who is a person with authority to formulate and determine an urban management plan under Article 60(2) of the Special Act on the Construction of the Multifunctional Administrative City in Yeong-Gongju Area for Follow-up Measures for New Administrative Capital (hereinafter “Special Act”), which is an area adjacent to the multifunctional administrative city (hereinafter “administrative city”), shall consult with the Administrator on the plan for the urban management (Class 1 district unit) proposed by the Plaintiff in preference to other duties. As a result, prior consultation with the Administrator with the Administrator on the plan for the planned urban management (Class 1 district unit), it shall be held that the plan should be supplemented and submitted to the Plaintiff, but the plan was not submitted within the second extended period (hereinafter “Grounds for Disposition”).

(2) The land to be incorporated into a project plan filed pursuant to Article 16(2) of the Housing Act and Article 9(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Housing Act shall not be submitted as a document securing the ownership of the land or a document securing the right to use the land (hereinafter “the grounds for disposal”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1, Gap 2, Gap 8, Gap 26-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) As to grounds for disposition No. 1

(A) Since the Administrator’s opinion, which served as the basis for the instant disposition, failed to comply with the 30-day consultation period stipulated in Article 17(3) of the Housing Act, it is unlawful, and the instant disposition based on such unlawful consultation opinion is unlawful.

(B) The criteria for "floor area ratio below 100%" presented in the consultation opinion by the Administrator are not effective since it is not publicly announced, and there is no legal basis because it does not meet the floor area ratio below 250% as set forth in the National Land Planning and Utilization Plan Act and the Yeong-gun Urban Planning Ordinance, and it is not possible for the Plaintiff to supplement the project plan as it does not know at any time since the standard has not yet been set and it is not possible for the Plaintiff to do so. Thus, the instant disposition based on such unlawful floor area ratio standard is unlawful.

(2) As to grounds for disposition 2

The acquisition of ownership or right to use the instant project site should be supplemented before the approval of the project, and the Defendant did not require the supplementation and submission of documents thereon for the last nine months, and the Plaintiff prepared sufficient funds for securing ownership in the instant project site, so that the problem of floor area ratio can be supplemented at any time if only the issue of floor area ratio was resolved. The instant disposition based on the failure to submit the documents for securing the right to use the instant project site is unlawful because it was in a situation in which the implementation of the instant project plan is not clear due to floor area ratio problems and it is difficult for the Defendant to secure only the ownership of the instant project site in advance.

(3) Violation of the principle of trust protection.

The instant disposition is unlawful since it has lost trust in the approval of the project formed by the Plaintiff’s implementation of the matters (such as the payment of the charges for water services facilities and the additional purchase of neighboring land) that the Defendant had requested during the consultation process.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Facts of recognition

(1) Summary of the construction plan of the administrative city;

(A) Upon the promulgation of the Special Act on Administrative City on March 18, 2005, the Government established the Multifunctional Administrative City Construction Promotion Committee under the President, and started research on the formulation of the basic construction plan, development plan and implementation plan after the date of the enactment of the Special Act on Administrative City on May 24, 2005, the government established the Multifunctional Administrative City Construction Promotion Committee on May 24, 2005, as a prearranged area, and the daily KRW 73.14 m2 per day, including the long-term Myeon, Nam-gun, Myeon, Dong, Dong, and documents, and the long-term Myeon, Myeon, Dong, and Dong, Dong, and Dong, Dong, and Dong-gun, as a prospective area, and started research on the formulation of the basic construction plan, development plan and implementation plan.

(B) The Construction Agency of the Multifunctional Administrative City completed the basic plan for the construction of the Multifunctional Administrative City on July 2006. According to this, the government sets the policy objectives of the construction of the Multifunctional Administrative City into the construction of balanced national development leading cities and global exemplary cities, and sets the basic direction for urban construction as ① multi-functional administrative and self-governing cities, ② pleasant eco-friendly cities, ③ live-friendly human-oriented cities, ④ high-quality cultural and information cities, etc.

For this purpose, the government shall consult on or expropriate land, etc. necessary for the urban construction project in a prearranged area, and the surrounding area shall, in principle, restrict development activities at the level of urbanization-coordination zones, such as prohibition, but in order to minimize the inconvenience of residents, the government shall promptly establish an urban management plan in the surrounding area and reduce the period of restriction to the maximum extent possible, and ② prepare urban planning standards in consideration of the characteristics of each region and each type and, if necessary, establish a district-unit plan to ensure that urban development does not go against the direction of urban development and the poor development is not caused, and ③ establish and implement support plans such as living convenience projects, welfare promotion projects, income increase projects, etc. for residents

(2) Status of the project site of this case

(A) The instant project site is located 50 meters away from the 1st line of national highways in the direction of Yeong-gun in Daejeon Metropolitan City and 60 meters away from the boundary of the planned area of the administrative city. The instant project site is a forest, field, field, field, etc., and thus, it is necessary to change the form and quality of the instant project site in order to implement the instant project plan.

Meanwhile, in the vicinity of the instant project site, the first apartment complex (4-15-15 4 dong, 228 Dopo-dong, Geumnam-gun, Geumnam-gun, Geumnam-gun, Yongnam-do, the 15-5 dong, 913 Dopo-si, and the second apartment complex (5 Dopo-dong, 913 Dopo-gun, Geumnam-gun, the 320 Dopo-si), etc. are located around the instant project site, and the first village site (multi-family housing construction) to be built for the first time in the administrative city construction project is about two kilometers.

(B) The instant project site constitutes an area adjacent to an administrative city, and is designated as an “urban area - residential area - Class II general residential area” among special-purpose areas under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (in relation to restrictions on activities in surrounding areas under the Special Act on Administrative City, the matters concerning restrictions on activities in the urbanization-coordination zone under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act shall apply mutatis mutandis. However, the instant project site area is in the state of consultation to be maintained as a special-purpose area under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act in accordance with Article 13(

On the other hand, the maximum floor area ratio shall be prescribed by the ordinance of the Si/Gun in accordance with the standards prescribed by the Presidential Decree. The maximum floor area ratio of Class II general residential areas shall be at least 150% but less than 250%, and the postponed military urban planning ordinance shall be at least 250%.

(3) The plaintiff's project progress

(A) On December 28, 2005, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to submit a business plan that reflecteds the implementation and details of traffic impact assessment, documents proving the qualification of a business entity (housing construction business entity), documents proving the right to use land, and documents proving the right to use land, and documents for consultation necessary for the business subject to collective disposal under Article 17 of the Housing Act, etc. by January 27, 2006.

(B) On the other hand, on March 29, 2006, the Plaintiff asked the Administrator on the issue of whether to build multi-family housing in Class II general residential areas in the vicinity of an administrative city (Ynam-do), and whether to consult with the Agency on the district unit plan and permission for development activities. On April 5, 2006, the Administrator respondeded to the purport that “The Administrator may conduct development activities to the Plaintiff on April 5, 2006, following the permission of the head of a postponed Gun and approval of the Administrator in accordance with the Special Act on Administrative City in accordance with the Ordinance on Administrative City in the Class II general residential areas of Geumnam-do, but if the construction of multi-family housing in the above area conflicts with the direction of development of the administrative city, it may be refused to grant permission if it is inevitable to achieve the purpose of public interest, and whether to grant permission or approval for the project in this case is to be reviewed comprehensively in connection with the urban management plan, etc. in the surrounding area to be formulated in

(C) On April 27, 2006, the Plaintiff submitted a supplementary document, such as a proposal for the formulation of an urban management plan (Class 1 district unit planning), to the Defendant. On May 8, 2006, the Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant a document stating that the Defendant is able to supplement the portion where the right to use the land, such as the acquisition of ownership of the instant project site, is insufficient within the prompt time.

(D) On May 8, 2006, the Defendant requested the Administrator to consult on the related affairs within the consultation period (30 days) stipulated under Article 17(3) of the Housing Act, such as whether to determine an urban management plan regarding the urban management plan (Class 1 district unit plan) proposed by the Plaintiff.

② On June 22, 2006, the Administrator requested the Plaintiff to supplement the “request for the preparation of the Scenic Formula (Preparation of the Scenic Formula (i.e., the preparation of the project from a certain distance point of view from the project zone to the main location of the surrounding area and natural elements)” in the landscape planning among the urban management planning (Class I district unit planning) proposed by the Plaintiff.

③ On September 18, 2006, upon consultation with the Construction Agency, the Defendant submitted supplementary documents by October 17, 2006 and notified the Plaintiff that the instant project plan had the right to use the instant project site, since the instant project plan is a high-tight and high-rise project plan that obstructs the formation of the landscape of the administrative city and the urban image. Thus, the development density and the number of floors have been adjusted downward, and the documents to recognize that the Plaintiff had the right to use the instant project site

In this regard, the plaintiff purchased the additional project site and adjusted the development density to the lower level by 205.14%, but notified that it is impossible to respond to the defendant's request for supplementation on the ground that the number of buildings is low and the environment in the apartment complex becomes inferior.

(E) (1) On the other hand, on October 17, 2006, the Administrator established the guidelines for the performance of district unit planning (hereinafter “instant guidelines for the performance of duties”) in areas adjacent to an administrative city. The purpose of this guidelines is to determine the procedure and standards for the performance of the duties concerning the urban management planning (district unit planning) formulated and determined by the Administrator pursuant to Article 60(2) of the Special Act on Administrative City. According to this guideline, the floor area ratio of Class 2 general residential area in the Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, in which the instant project site is located is 100%.

② On November 17, 2006, the Administrator notified the Defendant of the result of the consultation on the approval of the instant project plan as follows. In other words, when a district unit plan is formulated according to the instant project plan, the Administrator shall make a final decision that the construction of an administrative city is not consistent with the successful construction of the administrative city, such as the risk of the occurrence of difficult development, such as the lack of infrastructure, if buildings are higher than that of the national highway 1, and the existing natural scars are changed to the artificial scars by a building, which is the surface of pressure reduction and smuggling, and the entrance and exit area of the relevant building is too high or high, which is an indicator for pressure reduction and smuggling, thereby impairing the natural landscape of the surrounding areas, and impairing the entry landscape of the administrative city.

③ On December 14, 2006, the Defendant demanded the Plaintiff to supplement the project plan, which reflects the advice of the Administrator on the consultation with the Administrator, to submit by December 26, 2006. The period for supplementation was extended by January 20, 2007. However, the Plaintiff did not submit the complementary project plan.

(4) Securing title to use the project site

(A) Before the instant disposition, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of at least 1,541 square meters of the instant land among the instant land sites, or obtained the landowner’s approval for use. The Plaintiff primarily raised funds by the so-called project financing method, and entrusted the acquisition of the ownership of the land to the K non-Real Estate Trust Co., Ltd.

(B) As of March 13, 2007, the Plaintiff currently holds funds of 30 billion won to purchase the instant project site.

(5) Cost-sharing for waterworks facilities

Around May 2006, the head of Yeongi-Gun had agreed on whether the Plaintiff should pay KRW 230 million for the additional cost of the waterworks facility expansion project to the apartment to be constructed in accordance with the instant project plan, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 230 million to Yeongi-gun on two occasions on June 16 and August 16, 2006.

[Ground for Recognition] A, A3, A4-1-3, A5 (=A-5), A6, A9-1-1-16, A10, A13-1-3, A14-1 (=A3), 2, A15-3, and 4 (6), A16, A18, A19 (=A5-3), A20, A21 (i-7), and A22 (i-8), A24-1-3, A25-1, 26-1, 26-2, 3, 11-14, and 27, A1-1-8, B, 2-1-4, 41-4, 9, 10, and 11-1 of this court’s on-site inspection, and the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments as a result of this court’s on-site inspection, and the purport of this court’s all arguments.

(d) Markets:

(1) The meaning of “consultation” with the Administrator under Article 13(3) of the Special Act on Administrative City

(A) Under Article 13(3) of the Special Act on Administrative City, and Article 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, the surrounding areas of the instant project site are under consultation between the Defendant and the Administrator to be maintained as “urban area - residential area - Class 2 general residential area” which is a specific use area under

According to Article 58(1)1 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act and Article 55(1)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, permission for development activities that involve a change of the form and quality of land exceeding 10,000 square meters in an urban area (residential area) shall be granted by district unit planning. According to Article 16(1) of the Housing Act and Article 15 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, a person who intends to implement a multi-family housing with at least 20 households or a housing site development project with at least 10,00 square meters shall obtain approval from the Mayor/Do Governor. According to Article 17(1)1 of the Housing Act, when the approval of a project plan is announced by the Mayor/Do Governor, permission for construction under the Building Act

(B) However, Article 13(3) of the Special Act on Administrative City provides that a Mayor/Do Governor shall consult with the Administrator on the approval of a project plan, so it is necessary to examine the legal nature of the consultation.

First of all, according to Article 14(2) of the Special Act on Administrative City, the restriction on activities within urbanization-coordination zones stipulated in Article 81 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the construction of multi-family housing identical to the project of this case as a matter of principle, but Article 14(2) proviso of the Special Act on Administrative City and Article 4 subparag. 2(b) of the Enforcement Decree of the Special Act on the Designation of a district unit planning zone and a district unit plan are established, the designation of a district unit planning zone and the establishment of a district unit plan are allowed to be performed according to the plan (Article 62 of the Special Act on Administrative City). In addition, according to Article 60(2) and (3) of the Special Act on Administrative City, the formulation and decision of an urban management plan (excluding a plan for the designation or alteration of a zone for use) within neighboring areas shall be made to the Administrator notwithstanding the provisions of the National Land Planning Act, and the head of the local government having jurisdiction over the construction permission may separately obtain the approval of the surrounding areas.

In light of the language and contents of the above various legal provisions, it is reasonable to deem that Article 13(3) of the Special Act on Administrative City grants the Administrator the authority to manage development activities in the surrounding area in consultation with the Mayor/Do Governor having jurisdiction over the surrounding area in order to facilitate the construction of the multifunctional administrative city, and therefore, it should be interpreted that the “consultation” under the above provision means the consent of the Administrator ultimately.

(2) As to the instant disposition grounds (1)

(A) The summary of the instant disposition grounds ① is reasonable to view that the Defendant’s project plan was not consistent with the guidelines for urban management planning (district unit planning) within the surrounding areas to be formulated and determined by the Administrator as a result of the Defendant’s indicated with the Administrator for approval of the instant project plan, and thus, the instant application is returned.

Article 17(3) of the Housing Act provides that when a Mayor/Do Governor submits relevant documents concerning approval for a housing construction project plan to the head of the relevant administrative agency, the head of the relevant administrative agency shall present his/her opinion within 30 days from the date on which the request for consultation is received, but it is reasonable to deem that the above provision is not applicable in principle in the area planned for an administrative city, etc. under the general rule. Even if not, the above provision is merely a decoration provision that stipulates that the relevant administrative agency shall conduct the consultation as soon as possible, and it cannot be deemed a mandatory provision or an effective provision (see Supreme Court Decision 95Nu10877 delivered on August 20, 196). Since the Administrator submitted his/her opinion about 30 days from the date on which the request for consultation was received, it cannot be deemed unlawful for this case’s disposition.

(B) Furthermore, we examine the legality of the notification of the results of the consultation held on November 17, 2006 by the Administrator, which is the substantial reason for the instant disposition.

The approval of the housing construction project plan under Article 16 of the Housing Act is a so-called beneficial administrative disposition that entails the effect of giving rights and interests to the other party, unless otherwise expressly provided for in the Act and subordinate statutes, it belongs to the discretionary act of the administrative agency. The housing construction project plan that intends to obtain such approval is in conflict with the restrictions provided for in the relevant Act and subordinate statutes, and even in the absence of such restrictions, if necessary for public interest, the disposal authority may return the plan to the application for approval or make a decision of non-permission (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Du10883, Apr. 15,

However, as one of the basic direction for the construction of an administrative city, the Special Act stipulates that “a pleasant environment-friendly city in which nature and human beings grow” is “a pleasant environment-friendly city” (Article 6 subparag. 2), and that the Administrator designates and publicly announces an area adjacent to a prearranged area and in need of planned management, which may be affected by the development of the prearranged area, as an area in need of planned management (Article 2 subparag. 3) to manage various development activities in the surrounding area; and the following circumstances revealed in the above facts: ① The instant project site is located at the entrance of the city at which the first increase of the administrative city is formed and needs to preserve the natural landscape if the instant project plan is implemented; ② The purpose of the Special Act on Administrative City is to designate the surrounding area by suppressing the natural landscape if the project plan is implemented; ② If a large-scale multi-unit house is established on the instant project site, it is difficult to consider that the project plan is likely to bring about a large scale of the existing apartment complex or street landscape, and thus, it is difficult to consider the project plan to revitalize the initial urban development of the project.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion as to the ground for disposition 1 of this case is without merit.

(3) As to the instant disposition ground (2)

According to Article 16 (2) of the Housing Act, Article 15 (5) 1 of the Enforcement Decree, and Article 9 (2) 4 of the Enforcement Rule of the Housing Act, in order to obtain approval for a housing construction project plan, a project operator shall be required to secure ownership in the project site or to secure a title to use the site at least.

However, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of 19 parcels out of 104 parcels of the instant project site until the time of the instant disposition, or obtained the consent of its owner for the use. Therefore, even in this respect, the application for approval of the instant project plan cannot be accepted (the project proprietor is not exempt from the obligation to secure the ownership of the project site on the ground that the project proprietor holds adequate funds).

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion as to the ground for disposition 2 of this case is without merit.

(4) Whether the principle of trust protection is violated

In general, in administrative legal relations, in order for the administrative agency to apply the principle of trust protection to the acts of the administrative agency, the administrative agency should, once, issue an official opinion that is the subject of trust to the individual. As seen earlier, the head of Yeongi-Gun requested consultation on whether to pay additional expenses for the expansion of waterworks facilities in relation to the application for the approval of the project plan of this case, and even though the defendant requested the plaintiff to supplement the application of this case several times, it cannot be deemed that the defendant expressed the public opinion that he would approve the project plan

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion based on the premise that there was a defendant's public opinion as to the approval of the business plan of this case is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, the defendant's appeal is accepted and the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked and the plaintiff

Judges Kwon Soon-il (Presiding Judge)