1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, Article 11 of the former Management of Cultural Properties Act (amended by Act No. 961 of Jan. 10, 1962, which was completely amended by Act No. 3644 of Dec. 31, 1982; hereinafter referred to as the "former Act") provides that the Minister of Culture and Tourism may designate a designated cultural heritage protection area. Article 7 of the former Ordinance on the Protection of Local Cultural Properties (Ordinance No. 654 of Jan. 13, 1971; hereinafter referred to as the "former Ordinance") enacted pursuant to Article 54-2(2) of the former Act provides that the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Protection of Cultural Properties (Ordinance No. 654 of Jan. 13, 1971) may designate a protection area of local cultural heritage, and thus, Article 58-8 of the former Act provides for the effect of the designation of new cultural heritage within the protection area of new cultural heritage, and it does not include any provision on the designation of new cultural heritage protection area.

2. However, Article 58-8 of the former Act, which provides that "the Land Expropriation Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the expropriation and use of land within a protection zone of designated cultural heritage", does not only stipulate the purport that the provisions of the Land Expropriation Act shall apply to the expropriation and use of land within a protection zone, but also stipulates that the expropriation and use of land in a protection zone shall apply mutatis mutandis to the procedure for the expropriation and management of cultural heritage, and in such a case, the Land Expropriation Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the expropriation and use of the land. Therefore, Article 58-8 of the former Act provides that "any other project for the preservation and management of cultural heritage may expropriate or use the land within a protection zone" under Article 3-8 of the Land Expropriation Act. If the above provision does not interpret it as above and interpreted as only the purport that the Land Expropriation Act shall apply to the expropriation or use of the land within a protection zone as stated in the judgment below, even if it is necessary to expropriate or use the land within the protection zone, it shall be possible to expropriate or use the land as a matter of course and the compensation for such expropriation or use.

Therefore, even under the application of the former Act, the owner of the land within the protection zone should be subject to restrictions on the exercise of rights by designating protection zones in accordance with the provisions of Article 58-8 of the former Act.

Meanwhile, Article 3 of the Addenda of the former Act provides that cultural heritage and local cultural heritage under the former Act shall be deemed to have been designated as City/Do-designated cultural heritage and City/Do-designated cultural heritage under the new Act. Although there is no transitional provision on the protection zone designated under the application of the former Act, the protection zone shall be deemed to have been designated as City/Do-designated cultural heritage and Si/Gun-designated cultural heritage under the former Act, so long as the designation of the designated cultural heritage is incidental to the designation of the cultural heritage and its disposition, the protection zone designated under the former Act shall be deemed to have been designated as the protection zone under the former Act for the preservation and management of the cultural heritage, and Article 20 subparagraph 4 of the former Act (the provision on the permission of the Director of the Cultural Heritage Office at the time of acts that may affect the alteration and preservation of cultural heritage), Article 25 (Administrative Order of the Director of the Cultural Heritage Gazette at the time of alteration of the current cultural heritage) and Article 27 (Disposition Order of the Ministry of Culture and Cultural Heritage at the time of Alteration) of the current cultural Heritage.

Therefore, the designation of a protection zone for local cultural heritage under the former Act shall be subject to an administrative disposition that restricts the exercise of rights or imposes an obligation on a landowner within a protection zone. On the contrary, the decision of the court below that the designation of a protection zone under the former Act does not constitute an administrative disposition that is subject to administrative litigation is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the administrative disposition. The argument on this point is with merit.

Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)