(a) Act falling under the category and quality alteration of land under Article 4 (1) 1 of the Urban Planning Act;

(b) Scope of alteration in form and quality without obtaining permission under Article 21 (2) of the Urban Planning Act;

(c) The case affirming the judgment of the court below which held that, at the point of 20 meters in a diameter from the diameter where a pond, which is 50 meters in a development restriction zone, is included in the alteration of form and quality as stipulated in Article 21 (2) of the Urban Planning Act;

(a) "Change in the form and quality of land" under Article 4 (1) 1 of the Urban Planning Act means the act of changing the form and quality of land by cutting, raising, or suspending, etc. (excluding the act of excavating the land in the existing site where creation has been completed) and the act of reclaiming public waters, which means the act of actually changing the form and quality of land, and the act of de facto altering the form and quality of land and making it difficult to restore it to its original state due to the change, and the act of cutting the ground here means the act of increasing the volume of existing land and the act of raising the volume of existing soil and rocks against

B. In light of the purpose of designating development-restricted areas in accordance with Article 21(1) of the Urban Planning Act, the scope of the change of form and quality without obtaining permission pursuant to Article 21(2) of the same Act shall be deemed to comprehensively refer to all acts changing the form and quality of land by means other than temporary construction.

(c) The case affirming the judgment of the court below which held that cutting and embanking work, such as cutting and embanking a pond, etc., within 20 meters in diameter from the diameter of the land designated as a development restriction zone, constitutes an act changing the form and quality under Article 21 (2) of the Urban Planning Act, at the level of 50 meters in diameter;

(a) Article 4(1)1 of the Urban Planning Act, Article 2 subparag. 1(b) of the Regulations on Standards, etc. for Permission for Change, etc. in Land Form and Quality of Land;

A. Supreme Court Decision 93Do403 delivered on August 27, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2685). Supreme Court Decision 91Do2234 delivered on November 26, 1991 (Gong192, 367)

Defendant

Defendant

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 94No2986 delivered on November 9, 1994

The appeal is dismissed.

The defendant's grounds of appeal are examined.

"Change in the form and quality of land" under Article 4 (1) 1 of the Urban Planning Act means an act of changing the form and quality of land due to cutting, filling-up or suspension, etc. (excluding an act of excavating land for the installation of buildings or other structures within an existing site, the creation of which has been completed), and reclamation of public waters (Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Regulations on the Criteria, etc. for Permission for Change in Land Form and Quality, etc. of Land). It is required that the form and quality of land should be changed externally and substantially, and the alteration thereof requires that the restoration of land is difficult (see Supreme Court Decision 93Do403 delivered on August 27, 1993). The cutting of land refers to an act of reducing the volume of soil and rocks of existing land, and banking means an act of increasing the volume of soil

In addition, in light of the purpose of designating development-restricted areas in accordance with Article 21(1) of the Urban Planning Act, the scope of change of form and quality without obtaining permission pursuant to Article 21(2) of the same Act shall be deemed to comprehensively refer to all acts of changing the form and quality of land in a manner other than temporary (see Supreme Court Decision 91Do2234 delivered on Nov. 26, 191).

Based on macroficial evidence, the court below acknowledged the fact that the defendant cut and embling the pond, such as cutting and embling the pond in a diameter of 20 meters at the time of the first trial on the land where the defendant was designated as a development restriction zone, at the time of the first trial on the land at the time of the first trial on the land where 50 meters in diameter, the court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance which judged that this constitutes an act of changing the form and quality under Article 21(2) of the Urban Planning Act is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts due to insufficient deliberation or misunderstanding of the legal principles

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)