Open Decision Ledger · Constitutional, administrative & state liability
Defects in the prior facility decision do not pass to the approval in principle
Supreme Court, Aug. 14, 2025, 2025Du33478 (judgment)
No holding summary · checked against points at issue. The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Case name: 도시계획시설사업실시계획인가취소
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a defect is alleged in the prior urban planning facility decision, does that defect pass to the subsequent approval of the implementation plan as a ground for cancelling the approval?
Holding
In principle, it does not. The urban planning facility decision and the approval of the implementation plan are separate administrative dispositions, reached under separate requirements and procedures and producing separate legal effects, so a defect in the prior decision does not pass to the later approval unless it makes the prior decision void ab initio. Whether to include the land in the project site was weighed in the prior city management plan decision, so a complaint about that inclusion concerns the prior decision, not the approval.
Points at issue, verbatim
선행처분인 도시계획시설결정에 하자가 있는 경우, 그 하자가 후행처분인 실시계획인가에 승계되는지 여부(원칙적 소극)
Unofficial English translation
Whether a defect in the prior disposition, an urban planning facility decision, is succeeded by the subsequent disposition, an implementation plan approval (in principle, negative)
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 모두 기각한다. 상고비용은 원고승계참가인들이 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
All appeals are dismissed. The costs of the final appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff's succeeding intervenors.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
선행처분인 도시계획시설결정에 하자가 있더라도 그것이 당연무효가 아닌 한 원칙적으로 후행처분인 실시계획인가에 승계되지 않는다
Unofficial English translation
Even if there is a defect in the prior disposition, an urban planning facility decision, unless it is void by operation of law, in principle the defect is not succeeded by the subsequent disposition, an implementation plan approval
Factors
- 선행처분인 도시계획시설결정에 하자가 있는 경우
- 그 하자가 후행처분인 실시계획인가에 승계되는지 여부(원칙적 소극)
Unofficial English translation
• Where there is a defect in the prior disposition, an urban planning facility decision,
• Whether the defect is succeeded by the subsequent disposition, an implementation plan approval (in principle, negative)
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2017. 7. 18. 선고 2016두49938 판결(공2017하, 1733)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2016Du49938 decided July 18, 2017 (Gong 2017 Ha, 1733)
Decisions referred to
대법원 2017. 7. 18. 선고 2016두49938 판결(공2017하, 1733)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
What makes a defect in a city management plan decision void ab initio, so that it can reach the subsequent approval of the implementation plan?
A later decision treating a non-null defect of the prior decision as passing to the approval, or finding a grave and clear defect in a city management plan decision, would call for this entry to be read again. An amendment to Article 64 or Article 88(3) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, or to the provisions on the subject of a revocation suit in Article 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act, would have the same effect.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
8 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-24
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on all 8 axes.
Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Seoul High Court, in its judgment of 21 March 2025 (2024Nu30931), rejected all the claims of the plaintiffs' successors in participation. Those successors argued that the vehicle access road could have been secured on other land, which would have served the purpose far better, and that the defendant disregarded such alternatives, so that the approval exceeded and abused its discretion. The court below held that the approval, in which the balance of interests had been struck without defect, could not be found to be an unlawful exercise of discretion.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found the court below's method inappropriate: it judged the abuse of discretion on the assumption that the alleged defect was a defect of the approval itself, without first deciding the defect in the prior city management plan decision and whether it passed on. Even read as a claim of illegality in the prior decision, that defect does not in principle pass to the independent later approval, and the file disclosed no material showing a grave and clear defect in the prior decision. The conclusion that the approval was not unlawful was right, and no error of law affected the judgment, so all the appeals were dismissed on the unanimous opinion of the Justices.
Distinguishing conditions
- A prior decision whose defect makes it void ab initio, since the principle leaves out only defects that are not of that gravity.
- A defect of the implementation plan approval itself, such as non-conformity with the standards for the decision, structure and installation of the urban planning facility.
- A challenge to the prior city management plan decision itself, where the location, the area and the weighing of the inclusion of the land take place.
Record verification notes
Identify first which of the two dispositions the challenged act is, and separate what was weighed in the prior decision from what the approval required under Article 88(3) and Article 43(2) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act. Then test the alleged defect against the exception: a defect that makes the prior decision void ab initio can reach the approval, while any other defect does not in principle pass to it. The Court separately found that this record disclosed no material showing a grave and clear defect in the prior city management plan decision, and it criticised the lower court's method while upholding the result.
From the official text
Points at issue
선행처분인 도시계획시설결정에 하자가 있는 경우, 그 하자가 후행처분인 실시계획인가에 승계되는지 여부(원칙적 소극)
Unofficial English translation
Whether a defect in the prior disposition, an urban planning facility decision, is succeeded by the subsequent disposition, an implementation plan approval (in principle, negative)
Summary of the holding
The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Order
상고를 모두 기각한다. 상고비용은 원고승계참가인들이 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
All appeals are dismissed. The costs of the final appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff's succeeding intervenors.
Provisions referred to
국토의 계획 및 이용에 관한 법률 제43조 제1항, 제2항, 제64조, 제88조 제3항, 행정소송법 제1조[행정처분일반], 제19조
Read 2026-10-24 · Cross-read 2026-10-24. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger