[항소기각에대한재항고][공2001.3.15.(126),577]
[1] In a case where a person who obtained permission to implement a park project under Article 22 of the former Natural Parks Act intends to perform an act falling under Article 23 of the same Act beyond the scope of a park project for which permission was granted, whether permission should be separately obtained under Article 23 of the same Act (affirmative)
[2] The case holding that where a person who obtained permission to implement a park project occupies and uses a park by installing a facility other than the permitted facility, it constitutes a violation of Article 57 subparagraph 2 of the former Natural Parks Act and Article 23 (1) of the former Natural Parks Act
[1] Even where a person who has obtained permission to implement a park project under Article 22 of the former Natural Parks Act (amended by Act No. 5461 of Dec. 17, 1997), installs a facility at a permitted place, if the act exceeds the scope of the park project and constitutes the act enumerated in Article 23 of the same Act, it shall obtain permission separately under Article 23 of the same Act.
[2] The case holding that where a person who obtained permission to implement a park project built a facility other than the permitted facility and occupied and used the park, it constitutes a violation of Article 57 subparagraph 2 of the former Natural Parks Act and Article 23 (1) of the former Natural Parks Act
[1] Articles 22 and 23 of the former Natural Parks Act (amended by Act No. 5461 of Dec. 17, 1997) / [2] Articles 22, 23(1)1 and 11 of the former Natural Parks Act (amended by Act No. 5461 of Dec. 17, 1997), subparagraphs 1 and 4 of Article 16-2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Natural Parks Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 16057 of Dec. 31, 1998)
[1] Supreme Court Decision 86Do440 delivered on June 10, 1986 (Gong1986, 900)
Re-appellant
Cheongju District Court Order 99No420 dated September 17, 1999
The reappeal is dismissed.
The first instance court acknowledged that the re-appellant did not obtain permission, and determined that he did not obtain any comprehensive permission to occupy and use the land of this case, but only obtained permission to occupy and use and use the land of this case within the scope of the use of the rest area in the natural environment district of Chungcheongnamsan National Park, by installing facilities, such as steel pipe, etc., and sentenced the re-appellant to a fine pursuant to Article 57 subparagraph 2 of the Natural Parks Act and Article 23 (1) of the Natural Parks Act. The re-appellant appealed appealed on this ground. The court below rejected the judgment of the first instance court, based on the judgment that the re-appellant received a written notification of the receipt of notification and filed an appellate brief after 20 days from the receipt of the notification of the notification of the re-appellant, and that the facilities permitted by the park project do not include the facilities of this case such as one stop and one toilet, etc., and therefore, the re-appellant did not obtain any special permission to install and use the land of this case within the scope of the use of the rest area.
Even in cases where a person who obtained permission to implement a park project under Article 22 of the former Natural Parks Act (amended by Act No. 5461 of Dec. 17, 1997) installs facilities at a place where permission was granted, if such act exceeds the scope of a park project permitted and constitutes an act listed in Article 23 of the Act, permission should be separately obtained pursuant to Article 23 of the Act (see Supreme Court Decision 86Do440 of Jun. 10, 1986). According to the records, according to the evidence revealed in the records, the facilities of this case goes beyond the scope of a park project permitted by the re-appellant, and the act of installing the facilities falls under subparagraphs 1 and 11 of Article 23 of the Act and subparagraphs 1 and 4 of Article 16-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 16057 of Dec. 31, 198). Thus, the judgment of the court below which affirmed the re-appellant's order or its ruling of re-appeal is justified.
Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Yoon Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)