The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

In full view of the provisions of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes such as Article 2(1)1, Article 4(1), Article 17, Article 18, and Article 19 of the Urban Planning Act (amended by Act No. 4427 of Dec. 14, 191; hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), the court below held that, in a case where an area, district, or district is designated under Section 2 of Chapter II of the Act through an urban planning, the urban planning should continue to be implemented until the designation is cancelled; on the ground that the designation of the area, district, or district was made, the urban planning cannot be seen as being implemented immediately (i.e., the "execution is completed"), and therefore, the decision of the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the above provision of Article 4(1) of the Act or the above provision of the Act, since Article 19(1) of the Act is subject to permission of the head of Si/Gun in order to alter the form and quality of land within the area or district designated under Article 17 or 18 of the Act.

2. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 1(B)

In light of the provisions of Article 4(1) of this Act and Article 5-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Urban Planning Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13684, Jul. 1, 1992; hereafter referred to as the "Decree"), Article 10 of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Guidelines for Handling Activities such as Change of Land Quality and Quality, etc. cannot be deemed to exceed the scope of delegation of the above Act, such as the theory of lawsuit. Thus, there is no reason to criticize that Article 10 of the above Guidelines is valid, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on the

3. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 2

In full view of the actual status of the land in this case, the court below held that if the form and quality of the land in this case are changed, it may seriously damage the surrounding environment landscape, etc., and that the land in this case is connected to the land in which the construction of a building is extremely inappropriate due to the alteration of form and quality and quality in light of topographical conditions, etc. and the partial development of an individual parcel of land is deemed unreasonable in light of the overall land use. Thus, even if the land in this case belongs to the exclusive residential area and the land category is the land site, the defendant's refusal of the plaintiff's request for permission to change the form and quality of the land in this case cannot be deemed to deviate from discretionary power as it goes against the relevant laws and regulations, such as the Regulation on the Criteria, etc. for Permission to Change the Form and Quality of Land in Article 5-2 of the Decree of Article 4 (1) of the Act, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding

4. Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)