Kim Jong-soo (Attorney Cho Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The head of Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan City Office (the head of Gangseo Office)

October 27, 1989

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The disposition that the defendant made against the plaintiff as of March 24, 1988 against the plaintiff shall be revoked. The decision that the defendant's return of the above ground building permit to the plaintiff shall be revoked. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

According to the evidence No. 3, No. 15, and No. 2, which do not dispute the establishment of the plaintiff, the plaintiff applied for a building permit for the purpose of the extension of neighborhood living facilities and extension as shown in the attached Form No. 2 on the land owned by the plaintiff on March 17, 198, 115-3, Busan, the development restriction zone under the Urban Planning Act on March 17, 198, on the ground that the land and buildings owned by the plaintiff were expropriated and demolished all of the land and buildings listed in the attached Table No. 1 as an access road to the Nakdong River-gu, Busan, Busan, the development restriction zone was expropriated as an access road to the Nakdong River-dong, 115-3, 694 square meters, the development restriction zone was already allowed, but the plaintiff had already been allowed to move to the above land at Busan, Busan, the relocation complex created by Article 8 of the Act on the Compensation for Loss of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, and there was no return of the building permit by the plaintiff on the above land No. 1315.

The defendant asserts that the rejection of the plaintiff's application for building permission is legitimate on the above grounds. The plaintiff's disposition of the plaintiff's building permission is unlawful since the building and structure removed due to the implementation of public works pursuant to Article 21 of the Urban Planning Act, Article 20 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 7 (1) 3 (g) (i) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act are allowed to be moved to the neighboring site or the neighboring village, but the building and structure are allowed to be moved to the adjacent site or the adjacent village within the development restriction zone, and even if the plaintiff was sold to the above 3213-14 site in accordance with the Public Use and Compensation of Loss Act as alleged by the defendant, even if the plaintiff was sold to the above 3213-14 site in accordance with the Public Use and Compensation of Loss Act, it is a place located far away from the main road, and it cannot be held on the machinery, such as height, automobile attached sales, etc. operated by the plaintiff's removal building, while the above 1115-3 land in its surrounding area is concentrated, and

Therefore, Article 21 of the Urban Planning Act provides that if it is deemed necessary to restrict urban development at the request of the Minister of National Defense or by preventing any disorderly expansion of cities and preserving the natural environment surrounding cities, construction of buildings in violation of the purpose of designation, installation of structures, alteration of land size, division of land or urban planning projects shall not be permitted within the development restriction zone. Article 20 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that construction of buildings and installation of structures may be permitted if it is deemed that the purpose of designation is not designated within the development restriction zone. Article 7 (1) 3 (g) (1) of the same Act provides that the plaintiff may be removed from the above 40-dong land and 10-dong 40-dong 1, 12-1, 4-1, 3-1, 4-1, 4-2, 16-1, 4-1, 4-1, 5-2, 5-1, 4-1, 1-7, 5-1, 4-1, 7-2, 4-1.

Since the above removal of the building owned by the plaintiff is composed of the parts used as a house and the parts of the above removal of the building which are composed of a 3-dimensional building, such as the sale of automobile parts, and if all the removal is made due to the implementation of the public project pursuant to the provisions of Article 8 of the Act on the Compensation for Losses of Public Works, Busan Metropolitan City and the building site was constructed and sold to the person who was removed the building as part of the relocation measures, and the building site was sold to the above 3213-14 on March 31, 1987. Since the building site was sold to the above 10-meter from the main road, it is obvious that the building site was no more than 10-meter away from the main road, the building site was no more than 115-3,694, and the building permit was no more than 3-4,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000 square meters away from the above construction site.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is without merit, and the costs of lawsuit shall be assessed against the losing party and it is so decided as per Disposition.

December 1, 1989

Judges Cho Jong-soo (Presiding Judge)

[Attachment Form 1]

[Attachment Form 2]