[자연공원법위반][공2005.4.15.(224),616]
[1] Whether permission for an act under any subparagraph of Article 23(1) of the former Natural Parks Act is required to obtain separate permission for each act (affirmative), and whether permission shall be obtained from a park management authority under Article 23(1)1 of the same Act even in cases where a construction act in a natural park area does not require permission under the Building Act (affirmative)
[2] The case affirming the judgment of the court below which found a person guilty on the ground that if the land located within the district of a national park was permitted to divert farmland and the construction of concrete building on the above land was done without obtaining a legitimate permission under the former Natural Parks Act
[1] A permit for an act under any subparagraph of Article 23 (1) of the former Natural Parks Act (amended by Act No. 5874 of Feb. 8, 199) shall be obtained separately for each act, except in extenuating circumstances. A construction act that does not require a permit under the Building Act shall be deemed a construction act that does not constitute an act of construction in a natural park area, in light of the legislative purpose of the Natural Parks Act, which aims to preserve natural ecosystem, nature, and cultural landscape and promote sustainable use, by considering the special nature of a natural park, unless it does not constitute an insignificant matter under the proviso of Article 23 (1) 1 of the same Act.
[2] The case affirming the judgment of the court below which found a defendant guilty on the above land on the ground that the permission to divert farmland for the land located within the district of a national park is merely deemed to have obtained the permission to divert land under Article 23 (1) 4 of the former Natural Parks Act (amended by Act No. 5874 of Feb. 8, 199) and the permission to alter the form and quality of the land is not deemed to have been granted for "the act of newly constructing a building or other structure" under Article 23 (1) 1 of the same Act, and it is not deemed to have been granted for "the act of constructing a new building or other structure" under Article 23 (1) 1 of the same Act
[1] Article 23 (1) of the former Natural Parks Act (amended by Act No. 5874 of Feb. 8, 1999) / [2] Article 23 (1) 1 and 4 (see current Article 23 (1) 3) of the former Natural Parks Act (amended by Act No. 5874 of Feb. 8, 199) (see current Article 71 (2))
[1] Supreme Court Decision 86Do440 delivered on June 10, 1986 (Gong1986, 900) Supreme Court Order 99Mo174 delivered on January 4, 2001 (Gong2001Sang, 577)
Defendant
Defendant
Law Firm Dasan General Law Office, Attorneys Masung-si, et al.
Chuncheon District Court Decision 2004No27 delivered on November 19, 2004
The appeal is dismissed.
Permission for an act under any subparagraph of Article 23 (1) of the former Natural Parks Act (amended by Act No. 5874 of Feb. 8, 1999; hereinafter the same) shall be granted to each act, except in extenuating circumstances. A construction act not requiring permission under the Building Act shall be deemed to be an act requiring permission from a park management authority under Article 23 (1) 1 of the former Natural Parks Act, in light of the legislative purpose of the Natural Parks Act, which aims to preserve natural ecosystem, nature, and cultural landscape and promote sustainable use, by considering the special nature of a natural park area, unless it falls under minor matters under the proviso of Article 23 (1) of the former Natural Parks Act (see Supreme Court Order 9Mo174 of Jan. 4, 201).
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found facts as stated in its reasoning after compiling the adopted evidence, and found that the Lee Ho-ho who transferred the land of this case within the district of a national park to the defendant to the original state Mayor for a new construction of general housing, and applied for permission to divert farmland in this case to the original state Mayor after consultation with the management office of the Korea National Park Corporation about the diversion of farmland in consultation with regard to the diversion of farmland, is merely deemed to have obtained permission on the "development under Article 23 (1) 4 of the former Natural Parks Act and other acts of changing the form and quality of land" under Article 23 (1) 1 of the same Act, and further, it is not deemed to have obtained permission on the "construction of a new building or other structures" under Article 23 (1) 1 of the same Act, and the defendant's act of constructing a new building on the land of this case is not deemed to have obtained legitimate permission under the Natural Parks Act. In light of the records, the judgment of the court below is justified and there is no violation of law as alleged in the grounds for appeal.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)