Whether “off-road parking lot” that is entitled to obtain permission to occupy and use a green area under the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Urban Parks, Greenbelts, Etc. is the same as the off-road parking lot prescribed in the Parking Lot Act (affirmative)

Article 38(1), (2), and (3) of the Urban Parks, Greenbelts, etc. Act, Article 43 subparag. 1 and 7 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Urban Parks, Greenbelts, etc. Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 25585, Sep. 2, 2014); Articles 1 and 2 subparag. 1 of the Parking Lot Act

Dae Young Mans Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Rate, Attorneys White-gu et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Head of Seoyang-si (Law Firm TELS, Attorneys Lee Jae-in et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2014Nu73328 decided August 25, 2015

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to Article 38 of the Act on Urban Parks, Greenbelts, Etc. (hereinafter “Act on Urban Parks and Greenbelts”), a person who intends to build facilities, buildings, or structures, other than facilities necessary to create greenbelts, shall obtain permission to occupy and use (Article 1 subparag. 1); and the permitting authority may grant permission to the extent that the occupancy and use does not obstruct the purpose of establishing greenbelts and does not impede the creation, maintenance, and management of greenbelts (Article 38(3) of the Act on Parks and Greenbelts. Article 38(3) of the Act provides that a person who occupies and uses a greenbelt shall be determined by Presidential Decree with permission to occupy and use the greenbelt. Article 43 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on Urban Parks, Greenbelts, Etc. (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2585, Sept. 2, 2014; hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of the Act”) provides that “construction of a road, bridge, railroad, off-road parking lot, or landing site” (Article 1 and Article 22 subparag. 3). 7).

Meanwhile, by prescribing matters necessary for the installation, maintenance, and management of a parking lot, the Parking Lot Act is an Act enacted for the purpose of promoting the convenience of the public by facilitating the smooth flow of motor vehicles (Article 1); and the parking lot is divided into on-road parking lots, off-road parking lots, and annexed parking lots; and the “off-road parking lot” is defined as “facilities for parking motor vehicles, installed in places other than roads and traffic squares, and provided for public use”; and “attached parking lots” as “facilities for parking motor vehicles, installed in a building, a golf practice range, or other facilities incidental thereto, which cause demand for parking, and provided for public use” (Article 2 subparag. 1).

In a case where the relevant statutes do not clearly stipulate the definitions or the scope of the terms used in the said statutes, the interpretation of the terms in the statutes ought to be construed by comprehensively taking into account the overall structure, purpose and purpose of the statutes, the form and content of the relevant provisions, and the relevant statutes (see Supreme Court Decisions 2004Do7807, Feb. 18, 2005; 2006Do826, May 26, 2006).

Examining the language, purport, system, etc. of the Act on the Management of Greenbelts and the Parking Lot in light of the aforementioned legal principles, “off-road parking lot” which is entitled to obtain permission to occupy and use a green area under the Act on the Management of Greenbelts and the Management of Greenbelts is deemed as having the same function as a traffic-related facility, such as a road, bridge, railroad, track, landing place, etc., and an off-road parking lot determined under the Parking Lot Act is distinguishable from an attached parking lot in that an off-road parking lot is provided exclusively for use without being installed by a facility that causes other demand for parking. As such, “facilities having a function similar to an off-road parking lot” which is subject to permission to occupy and use a green area under the Act on the Management of Greenbelts and the Management of Greenbelts and the Management of Greenbelts, it is reasonable to interpret “facilities having a function

2. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the evidence duly admitted, the following facts are as follows: ① the instant land is a buffer green belt prescribed in the Park Greenbelts Act; ② the Plaintiff obtained permission to occupy and use a green area from 2007 to build a used cars exhibition center; and the Plaintiff leased part of the building on the land adjacent to the instant land to a used cars dealer; and the instant land was used as a used cars exhibition place; ③ However, on March 3, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff issued an order from the audit officer of Goyang-si to process the permission to occupy and use the instant land only for the legal purposes after the expiration of the occupancy and use period,” and on the Plaintiff’s application for the extension of the permission to occupy and use the instant land on April 1, 2014, on the ground that the establishment of a used cars exhibition center is not subject to green area occupancy permission (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

Meanwhile, Article 2 subparagraph 7 of the Automobile Management Act defines motor vehicle management business as a motor vehicle transaction business, and further, Article 53 (3) of the Motor Vehicle Management Act and Article 111-2 and [Attachment Table 21-2] of the Enforcement Rule of the Motor Vehicle Management Act provide that the motor vehicle transaction business shall have a specified area and structure exhibition facilities for motor vehicle transaction business.

3. Examining these facts and regulations in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the used cars exhibition center intended to be established on the instant land appears not to be a parking facility under the Parking Lot Act, but to be an exhibition facility necessary for motor vehicle transaction business prescribed in the Motor Vehicle Management Act, and even if a motor vehicle parking is possible within the facility, it is insufficient to recognize that the main purpose of the facility is for motor vehicle parking and is provided for the use of the general public. Therefore, it is difficult to view it as an object of permission to occupy and use

4. Nevertheless, on a different premise, the lower court determined that the instant disposition was unlawful on the ground that the instant used vehicle exhibition is “facilities having functions similar to the off-road parking lot,” and thus, constitutes an object of permission to occupy and use a green area.

Therefore, this judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the subject of permission to occupy and use a green area.

5. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, we reverse the judgment of the court below, and remand the case to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Shin (Presiding Justice)