(a) Whether the purport of each provision of Article 4 (1) 1 and 5 of the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation, which provides standards for changing the form and quality of land, and whether the provision of Article 2 (1) 3 (a) (ii) of the Rules of the Busan Metropolitan City and the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation, which are superior laws

(b) The case holding that although the specific land located in Busan Special Metropolitan City and Metropolitan Cities should not be permitted to change the form and quality of the land in conflict with Article 2 (1) of the established rules of the above "A", it violates the duty of good faith as a public official to permit the change of form and quality to the applicant for the housing construction project by making the same housing section

A. The purport of each provision of Article 4 (1) 1 and 5 of the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation, which prescribes standards for changing the form and quality of land, is to interpret that the alteration of land form and quality is restricted in a case where there is no green belt nor risk of damaging the surrounding environment, wind, scenic view, etc. even in an area other than a green belt. Therefore, even in a residential area, the provisions of Article 2 (1) 3 (a) (2) of the Rules of the Busan Metropolitan City which regulates a forest of a green belt area with standing trees of not less than 70% and a region with excellent clinical practice as a regulation area of changing the form

(b) The case holding that although the specific land located in the Busan Metropolitan City and Metropolitan Cities should not be permitted to change the form and quality of the land in conflict with Article 2 (1) of the established rules of the above "A", it violates the duty of good faith as a public official to permit the change of form and quality to the applicant for the housing construction project by making the same housing division be a

(a) (b) Article 4 (1) 1 and 5 of the Regulations on the Standards, etc. for Permission for Change, etc. of Land Quality and Quality (Ordinance No. 328), Article 2 (1) 3 (a) (b) of the Act on the Standards, etc. for Permission for Change, etc. of Land Quality and Quality (amended by the Busan Metropolitan City Rules No. 259 of Nov. 2, 1982, and amended by the same Rules No. 2396 of Aug. 22, 199), Article 56 of the State Public Officials Act

Plaintiff

Attorney Lee Jong-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu21522 delivered on June 14, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. We examine the first ground for appeal.

Article 4 (1) of the Urban Planning Act provides that the act of newly constructing a building or other structure within an urban planning zone shall not be conducted without permission from the head of a Si/Gun. Paragraph (7) provides that the standards for the above permission shall be delegated to the Minister of Construction and Transportation. Article 5 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that the head of a Si/Gun shall not grant permission in a case where the permission under the provisions of Article 4 (1) of the Act may interfere with the rational utilization of land or urban planning projects, which is not in conformity with the standards as prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation. Article 4 (1) 1 of the same Act provides that the standards for the permission for changing the form and quality of land, etc. (Ordinance No. 328 of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation) enacted to determine the standards for the permission under the delegation of the above Urban Planning Act shall not be permitted, and Article 4 (1) 2 (5) of the same Act provides that, within the scope of Article 9 (2) of the same Act and the detailed standards for changing the form and quality of land shall be determined within the Ministry of Busan Metropolitan City.

According to the above relevant laws, the purport of the provisions of Article 4 (1) 1 and 5 of the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation, which stipulate the criteria for changing the form and quality of land, does not mean green areas in urban planning, and even in areas other than green areas, there are concerns over damaging the surrounding environment, climate, and aesthetic view, etc., it is interpreted that the change of land form and quality is restricted. Thus, even if a residential area is a green area, the forest of the green area and the standing trees are 70 percent or more, and the area with excellent clinical practice is defined as a regulation for changing the form and quality of land in the area, and Article 2 (1)

In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that the non-party who filed an application for permission to change the form and quality of the land of this case, which is the housing of the Busan Metropolitan City and the head of the Busan Metropolitan City, shall not be permitted to change the form and quality of the land in violation of Article 2 (1) of the established rules of the Busan Metropolitan City, such as the judgment of the court below, even though the land of 42-2 through 4-3 square meters in Busan Metropolitan City, Busan Metropolitan City and the land of 7523 square meters in Busan Metropolitan City shall not be permitted to change the form and quality of the land. It is not erroneous in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence,

2. We examine the second ground for appeal.

In deliberating on the draft of the housing construction project plan that is applied by the non-party corporation in the previous market, the plaintiff was determined to place a condition to restrict the height of the apartment at the time of approving the housing construction project after the commencement of the housing construction project in order to preserve the historic site, which is a historic site, notwithstanding the fact that the plaintiff did not report the existence of the said condition to the temporary president even though he was aware that the apartment would violate the said condition when the apartment is constructed in accordance with the housing construction project plan that was applied after the commencement of the previous market, and as a result, the construction of the apartment that does not have the said condition was approved by the housing construction project plan without the said condition, and the fact-finding of the court below that the plaintiff violated the duty of good faith of the public official by replying with the false content that the plaintiff did not recognize the apartment as an absolute exposure from the shock on the appeal of the spagr

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 Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice) Kim Sang-ho (Presiding Justice)