(스터디 2기) 관련 판결문을 찾아서 공통된 판결 이유 분석하기

현재 제가 진행하고 있는 소송 건과 관련하여 관련 판결을 찾기 위하여 chatGPT를 활용해보았습니다.
 저는 지금 자신이 소유하고 있는 토지에 관하여 관할 인천시에서 그 토지를 일방적으로 도시계획시설(주차장) 결정을 한 사안에서 토지 소유자인 원고를 대리하고 있습니다.
변호사 입장에서는 이러한 행정소송의 소장을 작성하기 위하여 유사한 주차장 도시계획시설 결정에 관하여 제기된 취소소송의 1심 판결문을 분석하여 제 사건에 인용할 수 있는 판결이유나 법리를 찾는 것이 중요합니다.

제가 처음 질문한 내용은 다음과 같습니다.
(도시계획시설결정 취소소송의 원고 승소 판결문의 판결이유들을 요약해줘)
 Summarize the reasons for finding the judgments won by the plaintiff in relation to the lawsuit for cancellation of the decision on urban planning facilities.

- subject: parking lot decisions.

target: the first trial judgment in Korea 

그러자 챗지피티는 다음과 같은 답변을 내놓았습니다.
(의사결정과정 즉 절차상의 하자가 있었고, 주차장의 인근 지역에 대한 잠재적 영향력 평가에 대한 과실이 있었음. 또 대안에 대한 충분한 검토가 부족했음)
In the first trial judgment in Korea regarding a lawsuit for cancellation of a decision on urban planning facilities related to a parking lot, the plaintiff was successful in their case. The main reasons for this judgment were that the decision-making process was flawed and lacked transparency, and that there were errors in the evaluation of the potential impact of the parking lot on the surrounding area. Additionally, there were concerns about the potential environmental impact and the lack of consideration for alternative solutions. Overall, the court found that the decision to approve the parking lot was not made in a fair and reasonable manner and ordered the cancellation of the decision.

절차상의 하자라는 답변이 추상적이어서 보다 구체적인 내용을 물었습니다.
 What are the specific procedural defects?

챗지피티의 답변은 다음과 같습니다.
(첫째, 투명성 부족: 고시가 없었거나 청문회가 없는 경우)
둘째, 대안 수단의 고려 부족
셋째, 영향평가의 하자(소음, 교통적체에 대한 영향평가가 적절히 행하여지지 않음)
넷째, 부적절할 환경영향평가

The specific procedural defects that were identified in the first trial judgment in Korea related to the lawsuit for cancellation of the decision on urban planning facilities included:

These procedural defects were deemed to have significantly impacted the fairness and reasonableness of the decision-making process and contributed to the court's decision to cancel the decision on urban planning facilities.

대안 수단의 고려 부족에 대하여 보다 상세히 설명해달라고 했습니다.
Could you elaborate more on Failure to consider alternatives?

그러자, 챗지피티의 답변은 이렇게 나왔습니다.
(대안수단에 대한 고려 실패는 정책결정자가 다른 가능한 옵션이나 대안을 고려하지 못하는 것을 말함
예를 들면 도시개발계획 케이스에서 만약 지자체가 다른 가능한 부지나 대안을 고려하지 않고 도시개발계획을 승인하였다면 다른 대안수단을 고려하지 않은 것이 됨)

Certainly, failure to consider alternatives is a common procedural defect that can lead to a decision being challenged or overturned in various types of cases, including environmental cases, urban planning cases, and public policy cases. This defect occurs when decision-makers fail to consider other possible options or alternatives to the proposed plan or policy.

For example, in an urban planning case, if a city decides to approve a new development without considering other possible locations or alternatives, it may be found to have failed to consider alternatives. Similarly, in an environmental case, if a company proposes a project that would result in the destruction of a natural habitat without considering alternative ways of achieving its goals that would cause less harm to the environment, it may also be found to have failed to consider alternatives.

The failure to consider alternatives can lead to a decision being challenged on the grounds of procedural unfairness, as it may indicate that decision-makers did not properly consider all relevant information and options before making a decision. This defect can also be problematic from a policy perspective, as it may result in suboptimal decisions being made that fail to take into account the potential benefits and costs of different options.

To avoid this defect, decision-makers should carefully consider all relevant alternatives and options before making a decision, and should provide a clear rationale for why the chosen option was the most appropriate one. This can help to ensure that decisions are fair, reasonable, and take into account all relevant information and options.

마지막으로 원고가 승소하기 위한 전략을 소개해달라
What is a good strategy for a plaintiff to win a lawsuit for revocation of an urban planning facility decision?

챗지피티의 답변은 일반적인 수준의 소송수행 전략을 말해주었다.
(증거를 수집하고, 절차상의 하자(적법절차 위배)를 찾아라. 공적인 청문절차 등에 참여하라. 전문변호사를 선임하라 등등)

Winning a lawsuit for revocation of an urban planning facility decision can be a complex and challenging process, and there is no single strategy that will guarantee success. However, there are several key steps that plaintiffs can take to increase their chances of success:

Overall, winning a lawsuit for revocation of an urban planning facility decision requires a combination of strong evidence, legal expertise, and effective advocacy. By following these steps, plaintiffs can increase their chances of success and ensure that their concerns about the impact of urban planning facilities are heard and taken seriously by decision-makers.

챗지피티의 한계를 보여주는 답변
도시계획시설 결정 취소소송에서 원고가 승소한 판결 사례를 예로 들어달라고 했더니 주민들이 쓰레기 소각장 건설 결정을 취소한 황성 동산 사건이라고 그럴듯하게 제시한다(그런데 황성 동산 사건은 없다. 챗지피티의 페이크 뻥카다) 

Please introduce one ruling in favor of the plaintiff in the lawsuit for revocation of the decision on urban planning facilities.

One ruling in favor of the plaintiff in a lawsuit for revocation of an urban planning facility decision is the case of Hwangseong Dongsan, a landmark ruling in South Korea. In this case, a group of residents filed a lawsuit to cancel the city's decision to approve the construction of a waste incinerator in their neighborhood.

The plaintiffs argued that the city had failed to consider alternative sites for the incinerator and had not conducted an adequate environmental impact assessment. They also argued that the incinerator would have a significant negative impact on the health and quality of life of the residents in the area.

The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and revoked the city's decision to approve the incinerator. The court found that the city had not adequately considered alternative sites for the incinerator and had not conducted a proper environmental impact assessment. The court also found that the incinerator would have a significant negative impact on the health and quality of life of the residents in the area.

This ruling was significant because it established the principle that decision-makers must carefully consider alternative sites and conduct proper environmental assessments before approving urban planning facilities. It also demonstrated the importance of public participation in the decision-making process and the need for decision-makers to take into account the concerns of residents who are affected by urban planning facilities.

느낀 점

     복잡한 쟁점에 관하여 다양한 요소를 고려하여야 하는 소송 사건에 관하여는 엉뚱한 답변을 하는 경향이 있어  더블체크가 필요함. 판례에 대한 정보가 없어 구체적 판결을 찾아주지 못함.