A. In a case where the Acts different legislative purposes stipulate respective requirements for certain acts, whether the acts meet the requirements under each Act with respect to such acts

B. Whether the provision on the criteria and procedure for the permission of gas stations in Seoul Special Metropolitan City violates the superior laws such as the Petroleum Business Act, which is the area that can be established under the Building Act, the Urban Planning Act, the Fire Services Act, the Housing Construction Promotion Act, etc.

C. Whether the provisions on separation distance under Article 9(2) of the former Regulations on Standards, etc. of Housing Construction shall be deemed to include the case where the hazardous materials storage facilities, etc. are installed

(a) In a case where the different legislative purposes stipulate the requirements for certain acts respectively, such acts must meet the requirements of each law with respect to such acts, unless a law is construed to be exclusively applied in preference to other Acts.

B. In light of the legislative purpose, provisions, scope of application, etc. of gas stations, the Petroleum Business Act is not interpreted to have an exclusive relation prior to the Building Act, the Urban Planning Act, the Fire Services Act, the Housing Construction Promotion Act, etc. Therefore, even if a person satisfies the standards for gas stations under the Petroleum Business Act, a legitimate gas station permission may not be granted unless he/she otherwise satisfies the standards for the installation of gas stations under other Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Building Act, etc., and therefore, it does not change the interpretation of the above provision that "the area should be an area that can be established under the Building Act, the Urban Planning Act, the Fire Services Act, the Housing Construction Promotion Act, or any other Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Public Notice of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City's Public Notice No. 1993-135, May 10, 1993)."

C. Article 9(2) of the former Regulations on Standards, etc. for Housing Construction based on Article 31(1) of the Housing Construction Promotion Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13984, Sep. 27, 1993) provides that apartment houses, etc. shall be placed at a place not less than 50 meters horizontal distance from the storage and treatment facilities for dangerous substances. The provision should include not only the meaning that a business entity under the Housing Construction Promotion Act should maintain not less than 50 meters from the existing dangerous substance storage facilities, etc. when constructing apartment houses with approval of its business plan, but also the meaning that if apartment houses already constructed are already built, a person who intends to install dangerous substance storage

(a)(c)Article 12 of the Petroleum Business Act, Article 9(1) [Attachment 1] of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act [General]. (c) Article 31(1) of the Housing Construction Promotion Act, Article 9(2) of the former Regulations on Standards, etc. of Housing Construction (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13984, Sep. 27, 1993)

A. Supreme Court Decision 88Nu6856 delivered on September 12, 1989 (Gong1989,1479) (Gong14Nu213 delivered on October 25, 1994)

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee

The head of Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 93Gu23765 delivered on February 3, 1994

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

The defendant's grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal

The court below determined that the defendant's disposition of this case was unlawful on the ground that, in granting permission for petroleum selling business, the administrative agency added the criteria for permission for new gas stations other than the criteria for permission for gas stations under Article 12 of the Petroleum Business Act, Article 9 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and attached Table 1 of the same Act, and the new criteria for permission cannot be added, other than the criteria for permission.

However, if the laws different from the legislative purpose stipulate each of the requirements for certain acts, such acts shall be applied exclusively in preference to other Acts. Thus, in light of the legislative purpose, provisions, scope of application, etc. in permission for gas stations such as this case, the Petroleum Business Act is not interpreted to have an exclusive relation prior to the above Building Act, etc., and therefore, even if a person satisfies the standards for permission for gas stations under the Petroleum Business Act, a legitimate gas station permission cannot be granted unless he/she satisfies the standards for installation of gas stations under other Acts and subordinate statutes such as the above Building Act, etc., and therefore, the regional restriction provision under subparagraph 2 (b) of the above notification does not change in the above interpretation, since it is natural that the above legal principles stipulate the above legal principles, and thus it violates higher Acts and subordinate statutes or otherwise satisfies the requirements under other Acts and subordinate statutes depending on the existence of such provisions.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the disposition of the defendant's rejection of this case was unlawful on the ground of the above regional restriction regulations in its reasoning. Thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the permission standards for the gas station, and since such illegality affected the judgment, there is a reason to point this out.

2. On the second ground for appeal

Article 9(2) of the Regulations on Standards, etc. for Housing Construction under Article 31(1) of the Housing Construction Promotion Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13984, Sep. 27, 1993) provides that multi-family housing, etc. shall be placed at a place not less than 50 meters horizontal distance from facilities for storing and treating dangerous substances. The above provision includes not only the meaning that a project proprietor under the Housing Construction Promotion Act shall maintain not less than 50 meters from existing dangerous substance storage facilities, etc. when constructing multi-family housing after obtaining approval of the project plan, but also the meaning that a person who intends to install dangerous substance storage facilities, etc. shall maintain not less than 50 meters from the above multi-family housing, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 94Nu2213, Oct.

However, the court below determined that the above provision applies only when a project proprietor under subparagraph 5 of Article 3 of the Housing Construction Promotion Act constructs housing, etc. after obtaining approval for a housing construction project plan under Article 33 (1) of the same Act, and thus, it cannot be applied to the plaintiff who wants to obtain permission for the installation of gas stations. In light of the above legal principles, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of application of the regulations on the Housing Construction Promotion Act and the Housing Construction Standards, etc., and the above illegality affected the judgment. Thus, there is a reason to point this out.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court 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 Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)