When determining the legitimacy of an administrative disposition

The legality of an administrative disposition shall be determined on the basis of the law and fact at the time when the administrative disposition was taken. As such, if the defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City rendered a decision on modification of urban planning facilities and a disposition on cadastral approval with respect to the site for the purpose of expanding the existing water source area, and if each of such administrative dispositions is lawful, even if the site in question cannot be accepted as a water source area due to changes in circumstances thereafter, such reasons alone cannot be ordered to revoke the administrative disposition that defective each of the above administrative dispositions.

Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Articles 12 and 13 of the Urban Planning Act

Supreme Court Decision 67Nu163 Decided April 23, 1968

Attorney Cho Jae-in et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Attorney Han-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 78Gu529 delivered on July 16, 1980

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Whether an administrative disposition is legitimate shall be determined on the basis of the law and fact at the time when the administrative disposition was taken, and the defendant's decision on the site of June 23, 1978 as to the modification of urban planning facilities under Article 12 of the Urban Planning Act and the cadastral approval under Article 13 of the same Act is not carried out as in the theory of lawsuit after the modification of urban planning facilities under Article 12 of the same Act and the cadastral approval under Article 13 of the same Act for the purpose of expanding the source of the existing source of the source of the source of the source of the source of the source of the source of the source of the source of the source of the source of the source of the source of the source of the source of the source of the source of the source of the source of the source of the source of the source of the source of the source of the source of the source of the source of the source of the source of the source of the source of the source of the source of the source of the source of the site is not in violation of the law of attacking the source of the source of the site.

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that each of the existing facilities of Yeongdeungpo-gu and Gangseo-gu can not satisfy the demand for water supply in the Yeongdeungpo-gu which are the water supply area at the time of each administrative disposition, and the additional construction of the water supply area was inevitable because the construction of the water supply area was inevitable because it was not possible to meet the demand for water supply near the building site. However, there was a water supply area near the building site, but it was possible to use it as a water source, and the cost of construction can be easily maintained and managed, and the distance between the water supply area and the water supply area is difficult, and it was optimal in the security aspect of the water supply facility protection. Thus, the court below determined that each of the above administrative dispositions was conducted to use it as a water site for the expansion of the water supply area of Yeongdeungpo-gu and Seo-gu. Thus, the court below's determination that the defendant did not execute the urban planning project at a reasonable price for each of the above land for which the plaintiff did not use each of the above administrative disposition, as alleged by the court below, and it did not violate the principle of new administrative disposition or its purport.

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

Justices Jeong Jong-tae (Presiding Justice) Kim Jung-tae (Presiding Justice)