[손실보상금][공1996.8.15.(16),2329]
Whether Article 21 of the Urban Planning Act on Designation of Development Restriction Zones is unconstitutional (negative)
In accordance with the provisions of Article 21 of the Urban Planning Act, it is clear that the owner of land in a development-restricted area is subject to many restrictions on the exercise of property rights and is at a disadvantage compared to the general land owner within the scope of the restriction. However, in order to prevent the disorderly spread of cities and to preserve the natural environment surrounding the city in order to ensure the healthy living environment for urban citizens, or in order to restrict the development of a security city at the request of the Minister of National Defense (Article 21(1) of the Urban Planning Act), it is recognized that the disadvantage of land owner due to such restrictions is to the extent that he is not safe for the public welfare, and thus, the provisions of Article 21 of the Urban Planning Act are not in violation of the provisions of Articles 23(3), 11(1) and 37(2) of the Constitution.
Article 21 of the Urban Planning Act, Articles 11(1), 23(3), and 37(2) of the Constitution
Supreme Court Order 89Nu2 dated May 8, 1990 (Gong1990, 1267) Supreme Court Order 93Do2397 dated May 10, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 1743) Supreme Court Order 95Nu627 dated April 28, 1995 (Gong195Sang, 1995Sang, 191)
Plaintiff
Korea
Seoul Private District Court Decision 94Na24366 delivered on October 11, 1994
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
In accordance with Article 21 of the Urban Planning Act, the land owner in a development-restricted area is subject to many restrictions on property rights and is at a disadvantage compared to the general land owner within the scope of the restriction. However, it is clear that "in order to prevent any disorderly spread of cities and to preserve the natural environment surrounding the city in order to ensure the healthy living environment for urban citizens, or in order to restrict the development of a security city at the request of the Minister of National Defense" (Article 21 (1) of the Urban Planning Act), the disadvantage of the land owner due to the above restriction is deemed to be the degree that the land owner is not at the expense of the public welfare. Therefore, the land owner's violation of Articles 21 (3), 11 (1) and 37 (2) of the Constitution cannot be deemed to be a violation of Article 23 (3), 21 (1) and 37 (2) of the Urban Planning Act on the ground that the land in this case was designated as a development-restricted area under Article 21 (3) of the Constitution.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)