In a case where Party A rejected an application for land division on the grounds that the competent administrative agency failed to meet the criteria for permission for development activities under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act with respect to the application for land division within a green area, the case affirming the judgment below that the permission for development activities under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act should be obtained when the authorization and permission is required under the relevant statutes, and that the permission for development activities under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act should be obtained when the authorization and permission is required under the relevant statutes, and that the protocol for mediation cannot be deemed as a substitute for the permission for development activities under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act with respect to land division under Article 24(1)2 of the Enforcement Rule

Article 56(1) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, Article 51 subparag. 5(a) [see current Article 51(1)5(a)] of the former Enforcement Decree of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 23718, Apr. 10, 2012); Article 24(1)2 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Cadastral Act (Amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs No. 191, Dec. 14, 2009; Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs No. 2 subparag. 2 (see current Article 83(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Land Survey, Waterway Survey and Cadastral Records)

Plaintiff 1 and five others (Law Firm Shin, Attorneys Kim-nam et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (Law Firm Shin, Attorney Park Jae-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2010Nu35199 decided June 7, 2011

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are also examined.

Article 56 (1) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”) and subparagraph 5 (a) of Article 51 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act with regard to the division of land conducted without obtaining permission, authorization, etc. under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the lower court deemed that the permission for development activities should be obtained in cases where the division of land in a green area is intended to prevent urban expansion and to preserve the natural environment surrounding cities, thereby securing the living environment for urban citizens through the preservation of urban communities. Unlike the cases where the division of land is conducted with permission and permission under the Building Act and other relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as obtaining a building permit based on the provisional partition line, etc., and where land division is conducted without authorization and permission under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, it is necessary to obtain permission for development activities under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act if only the land is subdivided into a general land without permission and permission under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes.

Furthermore, the court below held that even if the adjustment of the contents of the instant conciliation protocol, based on which Plaintiff 2 performed the ownership transfer registration procedure for the divided portion by dividing the forest land of this case into the instant conciliation procedure, it cannot be deemed as a substitute for permission for development activities under the National Land Planning Act, as stipulated in Article 24(1)2 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Cadastral Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs No. 191, Dec. 14, 2009; hereinafter the same), based on the reasons stated in its reasoning.

In light of the purport and contents of the relevant provisions of law, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the interpretation of Article 56(1) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, Article 51 subparag. 5(a) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, or Article 24(1)2 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Cadastral Act, as otherwise

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Ko Young-han (Presiding Justice)