(b) Where a person other than the head of a Si/Gun constructs park facilities without obtaining authorization for an implementation plan pursuant to Article 25 of the Urban Planning Act, whether such person falls under subparagraph 1 of Article 32 of the Urban Park Act even though no decision is made on the formulation of a plan and

(c) The case holding that the act of friendly fishing nets within the private land within the urban park area falls under subparagraph 1 of Article 32 of the Urban Park Act when an application for permission to build urban parks is filed;

(b) Anyone other than the head of a Si or Gun may build an urban park or park facilities with the designation of an executor under Article 23 of the Urban Planning Act and the authorization of an implementation plan under Article 25 of the same Act under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, and if a person other than the head of a Si or Gun constructs park facilities without obtaining authorization of an implementation plan under Article 25 of the same Act, it falls under Article 32 subparagraph 1 of the same Act regardless of whether the head of a Si or Gun has formulated and decided a plan for creating an urban park

C. Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the Urban Park Act provides that "park facilities" means the facilities falling under each of the following subparagraphs, which are installed to enhance the usefulness of urban parks, and does not necessarily stipulate that "park management facilities, such as management offices, entrance doors, fences, etc." are to be installed according to the formulation and decision of a plan for creating urban parks under Article 4 of the same Act. Thus, each facility under Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the same Act, which is installed to be used for the usefulness of urban parks, shall be "park facilities" without relation to each facility installed before and after the formulation and decision of a plan for creating urban natural parks. Thus, the steel network fences installed by the representative director of the defendant company, which are installed over part of the site of urban natural parks in the state where the above company applied for permission at the time, are built for the management of the park, which constitutes "park management facilities" under Article 2 subparagraph 2 (h) of the same Act.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Urban Park Act provides that "urban park" refers to the urban park determined pursuant to Article 12 of the Urban Planning Act in order to protect natural scenery and to contribute to the improvement of health, recreation and emotional life of citizens in the urban planning area, and the fence of this case falls under park facilities as stipulated in item (h) of the same subparagraph, and it is limited to certain acts, such as the construction of park facilities, regardless of whether a private person's land in the urban park area has been expropriated and used within the urban park area, and it is clear in light of the provisions of Articles 6 and 32 of the Urban Park Act, and such restriction is not deemed an essential infringement on ownership.

Article 12 of the Urban Park Act provides that the right to manage private land in an urban park or the right to use and profit from the private land shall not be deemed to be transferred to the administrative agency pursuant to the Urban Park Act, but even if the private land is located in the urban park, it shall be subject to restrictions pursuant to the Urban Park Act, so long as the right to use and profit from the private land is located in the urban park. In addition, there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles of Article 2 subparag. 1, Articles 5, 6, and 32 of the same Act. Furthermore, even if a person other than the head of a Si/Gun intends to operate park facilities in a private land within an urban park, Article 6(1) of the Urban Park Act provides that the designation of an implementer under Article 23 of the Urban Planning Act and the authorization of an implementation plan under Article 25 of the same Act shall be granted to the land owner's exercise of property rights within an urban park zone. However, such restrictions are reasonable restrictions appropriate for public welfare, and it does not violate the above provisions of Article 23 of the Constitution.

(2) As to the third ground for appeal

In ordinary, the head of a Si/Gun, who is the managing agency, shall draw up a creation plan under Article 4 of the Urban Park Act and implement the project accordingly, but any person other than the head of a Si/Gun, may build an urban park or park facilities by obtaining a designation of the executor under Article 23 of the Urban Planning Act and an authorization for an implementation plan under Article 25 of the same Act under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, and if a person other than the head of a Si/Gun constructs park facilities without obtaining authorization for an implementation plan under Article 25 of the Urban Planning Act, it shall be deemed that Article 32 subparagraph 1 of the same Act regardless of whether the head of a Si/Gun has formulated and decided a plan for creating urban parks under Article 4 of the Urban Park Act, regardless of whether a plan for creating urban parks under Article 4 of the same Act has been drawn up and decided or not. Therefore, in this case, the legal principles under Articles 4 (5), 5 (1) and 6 (1) of the same Act have not been violated or it has committed an unlawful exercise of the right

(3) As to the fourth ground for appeal

Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the Urban Park Act provides that "park facilities" means the facilities falling under each of the following subparagraphs, which are installed to improve the utility of urban parks, and provides that "park management facilities, such as management offices, entrance doors, fences, fences, and fences, such as park management facilities" in item (h) does not necessarily require that such facilities should be installed according to the formulation and decision of a plan for creating urban parks under Article 4 of the same Act. Thus, each facility prescribed in subparagraph 2 of the same Article, which is installed to be used for the utility of urban parks, shall be "park facilities" without relation to each facility installed before and after the formulation

However, according to the records, the fence installed by Defendant 1, the representative director of the defendant company, is a steel-works with a height of 1.8 to 2.1m, which is built over 3.98 Kmm in length, which is part of the outer part of the natural park site at the time of transfer of the mountain village where the above company applied for permission to the Incheon Metropolitan City, Incheon Metropolitan City, and thus, it is established for the management of the park. Thus, this constitutes a fence which is a "park management facility" under Article 2 subparagraph 2 (h) of the Urban Park Act. Thus, the judgment of the court below is just and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the above law,

(4) As to the fifth ground for appeal

The court below held that even if the defendants' act of building the above steel network corresponds to the purpose of the Urban Park Act by preserving green areas in urban parks and creating a pleasant urban environment, etc., it is clear that the above act is unlawful to leave the above act despite the defendants' report to the head of the competent district office as to the construction of park facilities and the order of suspension of the head of the competent district office to prevent the defendants from hindering the formation of a pleasant urban environment by regulating matters necessary for the building, management, conservation and management of green areas in urban parks and by properly regulating and managing them in an urban park in order to ensure the efficient and consistent management. It also conforms to the purport of the Urban Park Act in order to prevent the individuals from carrying out park facilities and building structures indiscreetly within urban parks. Therefore, the court below's above determination is acceptable in light of the relevant provisions of the Records and Urban Park Act, and even if the defendants' act aims to protect forests and fields, it cannot be said that the defendants have no criminal intent to establish a fence in Incheon Metropolitan City, which is the place of construction of the above building materials and building site in question.

(5) Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)