beta
(영문) 대법원 2016.10.27 2015두48426

건축허가신청불허가처분취소청구

Text

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. A building permit accompanied by an act of changing the form and quality of land as prescribed by the former National Land Planning and Utilization Act (amended by Act No. 11922, Jul. 16, 2013; hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”) has the nature of a building permit under Article 11(1) of the Building Act and a permit for changing the form and quality of land under Article 56(1)2 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, as well as a permit for changing the form and quality of land under Article 56(1)4 and (3) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, and Article 56 [Attachment Table 1-2] subparagraph 1(d) of the Enforcement Decree of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act”). In full view of each of the provisions such as Article 56(1)2 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act

In determining whether a building falls under the requirements because there are many parts which are defined as indefinite concepts, administrative agencies have discretion. Therefore, a building permit accompanied by changes in the form and quality of land under the National Land Planning Act belongs to discretionary actions.

On the other hand, the judicial review of discretionary acts is limited to whether there is deviation or abuse of discretionary power, taking into account the room for the public interest judgment by the discretion of the administrative agency, and the examination of abuse of discretionary power is subject to the determination of mistake of facts, violation of the principle of proportionality, etc.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Du25590 Decided April 24, 2014, etc.). According to the reasoning of the first instance judgment as cited by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted, the following facts can be revealed.

On August 9, 2013, the Plaintiff newly constructed food waste disposal facilities (hereinafter referred to as “instant facilities”) on the ground of farmland 411 and two parcels (hereinafter referred to as “the instant application site”) on the upper-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri (hereinafter referred to as “instant application site”).