Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
The Supreme Court sentenced a number of meaningful administrative law rulings in 2023. Many of them are based on individual public law regulations and specific problems arising from them. In this article, several rulings related to the ‘Public Construction Law’ were selected and examined. ① The Supreme Court’s sentence of 2022DU31143 on September 21, 2023 confirms once again that it is necessary to obtain ’the legal status of being allowed to development’for construction in addition to securing a source of use of land. It is meaningful in that it declared that the above requirements are also necessary for notification of building construction. Considering the judgment, it has been more clearly confirmed that the notification of building construction is bound to be regarded as a notification requiring acceptance, and the need for a legislative review of the overall building construction notification system emerges. ② The Supreme Court’s sentence of February 2, 2023, 2020DU43722 is a question of whether the guidelines for the operation of development permission, which are orders of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport prepared based on Article 56 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the National Land Planning Act, are externally binding legal orders. Aside from the evaluation of the conclusions of the judgment, the judgment provides various issues regarding the handling of administrative rules and normative control. ③ The Supreme Court’s ruling on February 23, 2023, 2020Du36724 is meaningful in that it revealed the relationship between members and landowners in housing redevelopment projects in accordance with the Urban Improvement Act, and that the right to receive a house in housing redevelopment projects should be based on the status of members. ④ The Supreme Court’s ruling on October 18, 2023, 2023DU42584 dealt directly with whether indemnity for possession of state property can be imposed on a person who is in a legal position to justify the possession and use of state property but does not get a use permit or sign loan contract. Although we can accept the conclusion of the judgment, it raises the question of the court’s interpretation of the law and its limitations. The above two judgments are examples of how the purpose of a public law can be considered in the interpretation and application of individual public law regulations, and provide implications regarding the legal interpretation method of administrative law.
Dong Jin Joo (Sun,) studied this question.