Plaintiff (Law Firm Cheong, Attorney Park Young-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

[Plaintiff-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Jeong, Attorney Seo-sung et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellee)

October 14, 2014

Suwon District Court Decision 2013Guhap15717 Decided April 15, 2014

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

3. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. Purport of claim

On June 14, 2013, the defendant revoked the disposition of non-permission to file an application for a building permit with the plaintiff.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the addition of the judgment on the defendant’s argument under Paragraph (2) below, since the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of

2. Judgment on the defendant's argument of the trial

A. The defendant's assertion

The defendant asserts to the purport that the application of the legal provisions of this case to the plaintiff's building removed before March 17, 2012, which was the enforcement date of Article 12 (1) 3-2 of the former Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones (amended by Act No. 11054, Sept. 16, 201; hereinafter "former Development Restriction Act") shall not be permitted because it violates the principle of no payment in the law and the principle of no payment in the law and the retroactive application is discretionary action of the disposition agency.

B. Determination

In light of the circumstances that the first instance court had already decided, ① the legal provision of this case provides that “any building which cannot be relocated to a village district, among buildings removed from the implementation of public works under Article 4 of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects, which cannot be relocated to an area other than a village district,” and its language does not restrict the point of time of removal; ② the permission for removal within a development-restricted zone shall be the building subject to removal permission; ② the building which is constructed within a building shall be also the object of removal permission; and the building which meets the requirements under the Building Act shall be also the object of removal of the building; and the administrative agency may request the defendant to supplement the requirements for the permission (see Supreme Court Decision 200Du987, Oct. 11, 202). Since the legal provision of this case does not require the removal of the building at the time of this case’s application, the Plaintiff’s removal of the building at the time of this case’s construction-restricted zone shall not meet the requirements under the Act.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Young-chul (Presiding Judge)

1) On the contrary, Article 13(1) [Attachment 1] subparag. 5(c) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Development Restriction Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23787, May 14, 2012) provides that the owner of the existing house shall remove the requirements for removal within six months from the date of removal. However, after the enforcement of the instant legal provision, the said Enforcement Decree deleted the requirements for removal within the said six months.