Any individual person, local self-governing body or other public juridical persons, whose rights or legal interests are jeopardized as a direct result of the Urban Plan, or as a result of the application of the Urban Plan, or is likely to be jeopardized within an expected period of time by the Urban Plan announced by the competent administrative agency in accordance with the Urban Planning Law, has the right to initiate a litigation in accordance with this Chapter against the agency which approved the Urban Plan in the High Administrative Court which has jurisdiction over the case and to claim for the declaration by court that the Urban Plan is invalid.
The litigation cannot be consolidated with other litigations which are not subject to the procedure in accordance with this Chapter.

Any litigation initiated in accordance with the preceding Article shall be exclusively governed by the High Administrative Court at the location of the Urban Plan.

Any litigation initiated in accordance with this Chapter is subject to a preemptory period of one year after the Urban Plan is announced. If the unlawful grounds occur after the announcement of the Urban Plan, the preemptory period commences from the time of occurrence of the unlawful grounds.

The High Administrative Court, after receiving the complaint, shall serve a duplicate copy of the complaint to the defendant.
The defendant shall re-examine the lawfulness of the Urban Plan sought to be declared invalid by the plaintiff within two months after receiving a duplicate copy of the complaint, and shall act in accordance with the followings:
1. If the defendant finds that the Urban Plan has been made in violation of applicable procedure but such defective procedure can be corrected, it shall correct the defective procedure and inform the High Administrative Court;
2. If the defendant finds that the Urban Plan is unlawful, it shall report to the High Administrative Court regarding the unlawful grounds and adopt necessary measures;
3. If the defendant confirms that the Urban Plan is lawful, it shall provide explanation in its answer.
The defendant shall provide an answer along with the original Urban Plan, its re-examination file and other necessary documents to the High Administrative Court which has jurisdiction over the litigation. The defendant shall also submit to the court all other materials which are inseparable from the Urban Plan sought to be declared invalid.

The provisions stipulated in Section 4, Chapter 3 of the preceding Part in relation to intervention are not applicable to cases under the Review Procedure of Urban Planning that are adjudicated by the High Administrative Court.

The High Administrative Court may, at its discretion, order a third party to intervene in the litigation or grant the motion for intervention by a third party, if it finds that such third party's rights or legal interests would be directly jeopardized if the Urban Plan is declared invalid or illegal.
Paragraph 2 of Article 42, Article 43, Article 45 and Article 47 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the circumstances prescribed in the preceding Paragraph.
The parties who intervene in a litigation in accordance with Paragraph 1 of this Article are parties to the litigation.

For cases under the Review Procedure of Urban Planning, the High Administrative Court may, at its discretion, order a third party to intervene in the litigation if such third party has interests in the litigation and it is necessary for such third party to assist either party in the litigation. A third party who has interests in the litigation may also apply to intervene in the litigation.
Articles 59 to 61 inclusive, and Articles 63 to 67 inclusive of the Code of Civil Procedure shall apply mutatis mutandis to the circumstances prescribed in the preceding Paragraph.

In adjudicating the cases under the Review Procedure of Urban Planning, the High Administrative Court shall order ex officio the agency which proposed the Urban Plan and the agency which announced the Urban Plan to appear at the court session to give statement, and the Court may, at its discretion, notify the administrative agency whose authority is likely to be affected by the Urban Plan to appear at the court session to give statement. The administrative agency whose authority is likely to be affected by the Urban Plan may file a motion to appear at the court session to give statement.

If, when a case reviewing an urban plan is pending at the Court and has not been concluded, if the same urban plan was declared unconstitutional by a judgment rendered by the Constitutional Court, the High Administrative Court may, at its discretion, stay the proceeding by a ruling pending the conclusion of the judicial interpretation.

If the High Administrative Court determines that the Urban Plan is not unlawful, it shall dismiss the plaintiff's case by a judgement. The same shall apply when the Urban Plan is found violating procedural rules and such violation has been corrected in a lawful manner prior to the conclusion of the oral-argument session in the first instance.

If the High Administrative Court determines that the Urban Plan sought to be declared invalid is unlawful, the Court shall declare the Urban Plan invalid. If the Court determines that matters in the same Urban Plan that are not sought to be declared invalid but are inseparable from the portion sought to be declared invalid, are unlawful, the Court shall simultaneously declare such matters invalid.
In the circumstances prescribed in the preceding Paragraph, if the unlawful grounds occur after the Urban Plan has been announced, the Court shall declare that the Urban Plan is invalid starting from the date of occurrence of such unlawful grounds.
If the Urban Plan is unlawful and the only legal consequence is to declare such Urban Plan unlawful pursuant to the applicable laws, the Court shall declare the Urban Plan unlawful.
The judgment with binding effect rendered pursuant to the three preceding Paragraphs shall have legal effect upon third parties.
In the circumstances prescribed in Paragraph 1 of this Article, if the Court determines that another Urban Plan that is inseparable from the portion sought to be declared invalid is also unlawful, the Court may indicate its determination in the reasons of the judgement.

For the Urban Plan that has been declared invalid or illegal by a judgment with binding effect, the authenticated copy of the judgement shall be served to the administrative agency which announced the Urban Plan, and such agency shall publicize the main text of the judgment by using the method adopted in announcing the Urban Plan.
If the preceding judgement would render a criminal decision with binding effect unlawful, an extraordinary appeal may be filed pursuant to the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The legal effect of the decision with binding effect outside the scope of the preceding Paragraph shall remain. However, for the part of the decision that has not been executed or the execution has not been completed, starting from the date when the judgment declaring the Urban Plan invalid becomes binding, no execution action shall be taken in relation to the part that has been declared invalid.
The preceding Paragraph shall apply mutatis mutandis to the binding administrative dispositions rendered pursuant to the Urban Plan that has been declared invalid in accordance with Paragraph 1 of this Article in terms of its legal effect and subsequent execution.
If an Urban Plan is declared unlawful in a binding judgment in accordance with Paragraph 3 of the preceding Article, the relevant administrative agencies shall take appropriate measures in accordance with the judgment.

If there is necessity to prevent material harm or imminent danger caused by a disputed Urban Plan, a motion may be filed to the Administrative Court which has jurisdiction over the case to temporarily withhold the application or execution of the Urban Plan or to adopt other appropriate measures.
Articles 295 to 297 inclusive, Paragraph 3 and Paragraph 4 of Article 298, Article 301 and Article 303 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the circumstances prescribed in the preceding Paragraph.
Paragraph 1 of the preceding Article shall apply mutatis mutandis in circumstances where the Administrative Court grants the motion filed in accordance with Paragraph 1 of this Article. The same shall apply when the court ruling is reversed, amended or revoked.

Unless otherwise provided in this Chapter, Chapter 1 of this Part shall apply mutatis mutandis to the Review Procedure of Urban Planning.