Kim Young-young (Attorney Kim Jong-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Gyeonggi-do Governor (Attorney Park Jong-dae, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

on March 9, 1971

Supreme Court Decision 64Nu168 delivered on July 20, 1965, Supreme Court Decision 67Nu119 delivered on December 9, 1969

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All costs of a lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff.

On January 21, 1964, in Daegu City, which was made by the defendant with respect to the land listed in the attached list as of January 21, 1964, the designation of the land planned for replotting is invalid

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

On January 21, 1964, the defendant issued an administrative disposition that approves the designation of land substitution pursuant to the land substitution and rearrangement project in the relevant zone, including the land indicated in the attached Table, as a person on January 21, 1964 at the request of the land rearrangement cooperative (the head of the cooperative) in Daegu City, and the fact that the land listed in the above list was owned by the plaintiff at

The plaintiff's representative asserts that the above-mentioned land rearrangement project association is not an administrative agency or a corporate body, but an organization under the general territory of the district concerned. Thus, the above association has no legal capacity to take charge of public rights and therefore the defendant's disposition of this case is null and void. Thus, according to Article 5 (1) and (2) of the former Urban Planning Act and Article 3 (5) and (6) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act of this Act of this case, if the Minister of Construction and Transportation deems it necessary, the above land rearrangement project can be executed only by a non-administrative agency and the above land rearrangement project association can be executed under the premise that the above land rearrangement project is not executed by the government agency or the association under the above-mentioned land rearrangement project. The plaintiff's representative is not the one owner of the land within the project area or the association under the premise that the above land rearrangement project is not executed within the project area of the non-party 1 and the association is not authorized to implement the land rearrangement project within the boundary of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation. The plaintiff's representative or the association shall not be authorized to implement the above land rearrangement project.

In determining the land substitution plan pursuant to Article 40 of the former Urban Planning Act, the Plaintiff’s legal representative shall give consent to the above land substitution plan pursuant to Article 112(3) of the former Enforcement Decree. Although the above association did not have consent to the above land owners, the Defendant’s branch office shall obtain such authorization, i.e., it cannot be exempt from the land substitution plan. Thus, if the land owners, such as the above non-party association, were to obtain authorization for the land substitution plan pursuant to Article 6(1) of the former Urban Planning Act and the above land substitution plan pursuant to Article 112(3) of the former Enforcement Decree, it shall not be deemed to have obtained the above land substitution plan for the first time, and it shall not be deemed to have obtained the consent of the Minister of Construction and Transportation in advance, and it shall not be deemed to have obtained the above land substitution plan for the first time and for the first time, and it shall not be deemed to have obtained the above land owners’ consent to the land substitution plan for the first time after the above land substitution plan for the second time.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for nullification of this case based on the premise that the authorization disposition is null and void as a matter of course is without merit (the part of the claim for revocation of the authorization is withdrawn at the trial after remand). This decision is delivered with this decision by the administrative litigation act, Article 14 of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 89 and Article 96 of the Civil Procedure Act as to the burden of litigation costs.

on March 30, 1971

Judges Sap-ho (Presiding Judge) the highest number of judges

[Attachment Omission (List)]