[건축허가(개발행위허가포함)불허가처분취소][공2007.1.1.(265),65]
Whether Article 55(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, which is a provision restricting connected development, applies to cases where the project operator or the project timing differs (affirmative)
Article 55 (1) 1 (a) of the Enforcement Decree of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act strictly limits the form and quality alteration area of land where development activities are permitted, due to the restriction on development activities, it is necessary to limit the area where the form and quality of land is changed to a certain extent in order to preserve the natural environment, farmland, and forests, to prevent reckless development, and to efficiently utilize, develop, and preserve national land. The main purpose of Article 55 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, which is the provision that restricts adjacent development, is to further specify such purport, and to prevent the convenient development of the law that deviates from the area restriction provision, as such, in light of the purport of each provision, it is reasonable to interpret the above restriction provision to apply not only to the case where a project proprietor is the same and also to the case where a project proprietor or a project proprietor is different.
Article 55(1)1(a) and (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act
Plaintiff (Attorney Song-tae, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
The head of Si/Gun/Gu in Daejeon Metropolitan City
Daejeon High Court Decision 2006Nu369 decided August 3, 2006
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
Article 55(1)1(a) of the Enforcement Decree of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act prohibits a change of the form and quality of at least 10,000 square meters in a residential area, commercial area, natural green belt, or production green belt, and Article 55(4) of the same Act (hereinafter “the provisions on the restriction on adjacent development”) prohibits a change in the form and quality of at least 10,000 square meters in a green area, control area, agricultural and forest area, or natural environment conservation area, if they are developed or developed in parts over several occasions, they shall be regarded as one development act and calculated the area. The strict restriction of the area restriction regulations on the area restriction is derived from the fact that it is necessary to strictly limit the area where the change in the form and quality of land is permitted to preserve the natural environment, farmland, and forest, to prevent the reckless development of national land, and to prevent the efficient utilization, development, and preservation of national land. In light of the purport of the above restriction regulations more concrete and the purport of the restriction on adjacent development, the project operator, as well as the project operator, is interpreting the same.
The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the statutes on the planning and utilization of national land, the protection of trust and the principle of equality, etc.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)