beta
(영문) 대법원 1991. 8. 27. 선고 90누8794 판결

[토지거래허가신청부결처분취소][집39(3)특,651;공1991.10.15.(906),2449]

Main Issues

(a) The case holding that the non-permission of a social welfare foundation on the ground that it falls under Article 21-4 (1) 3 of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory and thus falls under the category of Article 21-4 (1) 3 of the Act on the Management and

B. In the case of paragraph (a) above, whether the application for permission for the above contract constitutes a case stipulated in Article 21-4 (1) 3 of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory for the purpose of establishing social welfare facilities which are urban planning facilities (negative)

Summary of Judgment

(a) The case holding that the non-permission of a land transaction contract for miscellaneous land within the natural green-belt area for the urban planning, the purpose of which is to establish and operate social welfare facilities of a social welfare foundation, shall be unlawful on the ground that it falls under Article 21-4 (1) 3 of

B. In the case of paragraph (a) above, the transaction contract of the above land shall undergo such procedures as the formulation of the urban planning, the decision of the urban planning and the cadastral public notice as to the urban planning under the provisions of Articles 11 through 13 of the Urban Planning Act in order to establish social welfare facilities which are urban planning facilities, and the determination of the urban planning, etc., and the application for permission for the land transaction contract shall not be deemed to fall short of the national land utilization plan, the urban planning and other plans

[Reference Provisions]

Articles 21-3 and 21-4 (1) 3 of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory

Plaintiff-Appellee

Social Welfare Foundation

Defendant-Appellant

The head of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Judgment of the lower court

Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu2781 delivered on October 12, 1990

Text

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

Reasons

The defendant's grounds of appeal are examined.

In light of the above fact that the land of this case is owned by the non-party 1 company, and the Minister of Construction and Transportation was designated as the regulated area of Article 21-2 of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, and that the plaintiff purchased the land of this case from the non-party 2 company for the purpose of using social welfare facilities on the land of this case for the purpose of establishing and operating the above non-party 1 company, it is necessary to preserve the land of this case for the purpose of controlling the use of the land of this case as a planned area for public use under the Act on September 22, 1989, because the land of this case does not fall under the category of the non-party 1 company's land for the purpose of establishing and operating the land of this case for non-party 2 company's construction contract of this case for non-party 1 company's use of land for non-party 2 company's land for non-party 1 company's use of land for non-party 1 company's natural green area.

In light of relevant evidence and records and relevant Acts and subordinate statutes (Article 25 (2) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Urban Planning Act and Article 19 of the Enforcement Decree of the Cadastral Rule), the above recognition judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and it shall not be deemed that there is an error of law by misunderstanding legal principles or incomplete hearing, such as theory of lawsuit, in the judgment below.

In order to establish social welfare facilities which are urban planning facilities, procedures such as the formulation of urban planning and the decision of urban planning under Articles 11 through 13 of the Urban Planning Act and the public notice of the land registration as to urban planning, etc. However, it cannot be said that the application for permission for the contract contract of this case does not conform to the national land utilization plan, urban planning and other plans for the use of land.

In addition, since the purpose of the use of the land in this case is to provide facilities for the welfare or convenience of the residents in the regulatory zone and for the installation of facilities confirmed by the head of the competent Si/Gun/Gu (Article 21-4 (1) 2 (b) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory), or the Plaintiff entered into a contract of land, etc. without obtaining permission under Article 21-3 (1) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory or without obtaining permission under Article 21-3 (1) of the same Act, the Defendant did not assert any ground for the disposition in this case, as well as the Defendant did not assert any ground for the original disposition

In the end, there is no reason for all arguments.

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)

심급 사건
-서울고등법원 1990.10.12.선고 90구2781
본문참조조문
기타문서