[1] The legal nature of Article 13(1) of the former Rules on the Standards for Urban Planning Facilities

[2] In a case where an administrative agency decided to establish only the length of a corner of a road that is more relaxed than the standard set forth in Article 13(1) [Attachment 2] of the former Rules on the Standards for Urban Planning in consideration of the special circumstances of a road crossing, the standard for determining whether the urban planning decision has exceeded and abused discretion

[3] The case holding that the urban planning vessel was not abused or abused by the discretionary authority, on the ground that an administrative agency only installs a road corner length more relaxed than the standard set forth in Article 13 (1) [Attachment 2] of the former Rules on the Standards for Urban Planning Facilities in order to ensure smooth and smooth traffic and ensure a long distance

[1] Article 12(3) and the main sentence of Article 16(2) of the former Urban Planning Act (amended by Act No. 6243, Jan. 28, 2000); Article 13(1) [Attachment 2] of the former Rules on the Standards for Urban Planning Facilities (amended by Act No. 6257, Aug. 18, 200); Article 13(1) of the former Rules on the Standards for Urban Planning Facilities (amended by Act No. 6243, Jan. 28, 200); Article 16(2) of the former Rules on the Standards for Urban Planning Facilities (amended by Act No. 6243, Jan. 28, 2000); Article 13(1) [Attachment 2] of the former Rules on the Standards for Urban Planning Facilities (amended by Act No. 6250, Jan. 28, 2000); Article 12(1) and (2) of the former Rules on the Standards for Delegation of Urban Planning Facilities.

[2] Considering the special circumstances of the cross-section of a road, an administrative agency established only the length of a corner of a road, which is more relaxed than the standard prescribed in Article 13(1) [Attachment 2] of the former Rules on the Standards for Urban Planning Facilities (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 257 of August 18, 200), which is a statutory order, by taking into account the special circumstances of the cross-section of the road, and in such a case, the urban planning planning decision cannot be deemed as a deviation or abuse of discretionary authority unless the urban planning line lacks legitimacy

[3] The case holding that the urban planning vessel did not deviate from and abuse its discretion, on the ground that the administrative agency only installs the length of a corner of a road, which is more relaxed than the standard under Article 13 (1) [Attachment 2] of the former Rules on the Standards for Urban Planning Facilities (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 257 of August 18, 200) in order to ensure smooth traffic and smooth distance

[1] Article 12 of the former Urban Planning Act (amended by Act No. 6243, Jan. 28, 200; see Article 12 of the current National Land Planning and Utilization Act); Article 16 (see Article 43 of the current National Land Planning and Utilization Act); Article 13 (1) of the former Rules on the Standards for Standards for Urban Planning Facilities (amended by Act No. 257, Aug. 18, 2000; see Article 14 (1) of the current Rules on the Standards for Determination, Structure, and Establishment of Urban Planning Facilities) / [2] Article 16 of the former Urban Planning Act (amended by Act No. 6243, Jan. 28, 200; see Article 43 of the current National Land Planning and Utilization Act); Article 16 of the former Rules on the Standards for Urban Planning Facilities (amended by Act No. 6257, Aug. 18, 2000; / [2] Article 16 (3) of the former Rules on the Standards for Establishment of Urban Planning Facilities [Attachment 4]

Plaintiff (Attorney Park Jong-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (Attorney Hong-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2003Nu324 delivered on November 21, 2003

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. 원심은 채택 증거들을 종합하여, 피고는 도시계획시설인 인수로 중 이 사건 토지와 건물을 포함하는 ○○동 540~550간 폭 15m, 연장 170m의 도로개설공사를 직접 시행하기로 하고, 2002. 2. 15. 도시계획법 제62조 에 따라 성북구 공고 제2002-67호로 도시계획사업(도로) 실시계획인가를 위한 공람공고를 한 후, 같은 해 3. 15. 성북구 고시 제2002-24호로 도시계획법 제61조 , 제63조 에 따라 도시계획사업실시계획을 인가(이하 ‘이 사건 처분’이라 한다), 고시한 사실 등 그 판시와 같은 사실을 인정한 다음, 이 사건 도로는 기존의 왕복 8차선의 미아로에 y자형으로 교차하고 있으므로, 이 사건 토지와 건물의 위치는 원활한 교통 및 가시거리확보를 위하여 도로모퉁이를 설치할 수 있도록 한 구 도시계획시설기준에 관한 규칙(2000. 8. 18. 건설교통부령 제257호로 전문 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 ‘시설기준규칙’이라 한다) 제13조 제1항 에서 정한 ‘도로의 교차부분’에 해당하여, 이 사건 도로에서 우회전하여 미아로에 진입하는 차량의 원활한 교통과 가시거리확보를 위하여 도로의 교차부분의 왼쪽모퉁이에 위치한 이 사건 건물의 일부를 수용하여 도로모퉁이의 길이를 확보할 필요가 있으나, 첫째 시설기준규칙 제13조 제1항 은 교차하는 2개의 도로의 너비와 교차각도에 따른 도로모퉁이의 길이에 대하여서만 규정할 뿐, 한 도로에 교차하는 다른 도로가 진출입이 가능한 왕복통행 도로로 이용되는지, 아니면 진출만 가능한 일방통로 도로로 이용되는지 여부에 따라 도로모퉁이의 길이가 달라야 할 것인데도 이를 구별하지 아니한 채 규정하고 있고, 또한 2개의 도로의 너비와 교차도로의 진출입가능 여부에 따라 각 도로의 도로모퉁이의 출발기준점이 달라야 할 것인데도 이에 관한 아무런 규정을 두고 있지 아니하여 불합리하다고 할 것이므로, 피고의 내부준칙에 불과한 시설기준규칙 제13조 제1항 의 규정은 2차선 유출일방통행 도로로 사용될 이 사건 도로와 기존의 왕복 8차선의 미아로가 y자형으로 교차하는 부분에 그대로 적용될 수 없다는 점, 둘째 서울특별시장이 1996. 10. 19. 서울특별시 고시 제1996-284호로 이 사건 토지와 건물 앞의 도로구간을 왕복 8차선의 미아로에 y자로 교차되는 2차선 유출일방통행 도로로 운영하기로 계획하고 폭 15m로 확장하는 도로계획시설(도로) 변경결정을 하여 피고가 1996. 12. 24. 서울특별시 성북구 고시 제1996-111호로 그 지적승인을 고시함에 있어서, 시설기준규칙 제13조 제1항 에 따른 도로모퉁이의 길이를 확보한다고 하면서도 위 시설기준규칙에 정해진 도로모퉁이의 길이를 확보하지 아니하고, 2차선 유출일방통행 도로에 필요한 도로모퉁이의 길이 및 출발기준점에 대한 별도의 검토 및 측량 없이, 1977. 3. 7.자 12m 도시계획선 지적승인 당시에 고시된 이 사건 토지 및 건물에 관한 도로모퉁이의 선(별지 도면 표시 ⑦, ⑧의 각 점을 순차로 연결한 선)을 그대로 도로모퉁이의 선으로 지적승인을 하고 있어 그 합리성이 없는 점, 셋째 이 사건 도로가 미아로에 y자로 비스듬이 교차하고, 이를 2차선 유출일방통행 도로로 이용할 경우에는 미아로로 진출하는 차량의 시야확보가 위 두 개의 도로가 T자로 직각으로 교차하고 이 사건 도로를 2차선 왕복도로로 이용할 경우보다 용이하므로, 이 사건 토지 및 건물에 관하여 그어진 도로모퉁이의 선을 수용대상 토지와 건물이 줄어드는 쪽인 별지 도면 표시 ①, ⑬의 각 점을 연결한 선 방향으로 새로이 그을 필요성이 있는 점, 넷째 이 사건 도시계획선을 기준으로 이 사건 토지 및 건물이 수용되어 이 사건 건물 중 이 사건 토지 지상의 건물이 철거되면, 이 사건 잔존건물만으로는 건물로서의 기능 및 효용가치가 떨어지고, 붕괴의 위험성마저 있기 때문에 사실상 건물로서 사용할 수 없는 점 등 제반 사정에 비추어 보면, 피고가 도로모퉁이의 길이를 확보하기 위하여 이 사건 토지 및 건물에 관하여 그은 도시계획선은 원활한 교통과 가시거리확보를 위하여 필요한 도로모퉁이의 길이를 필요 이상으로 넘어선 것으로서 그 합리성과 적정성을 결여하였고, 또한 위 도시계획선으로 인하여 침해되는 사익은 이 사건 건물의 효용성을 전부 상실하게 할 정도에 이르러 원활한 교통과 가시거리확보라는 공익보다는 더 크다고 할 것이므로, 위 도시계획선에 기초한 이 사건 처분은 과잉금지의 원칙 내지 비례의 원칙에 위반하여 재량권의 범위를 일탈 내지 남용한 것으로서 위법하다고 판단하였다.

2. However, we cannot agree with the judgment of the court below for the following reasons.

A. Under Article 12(3) and the main sentence of Article 16(2) of the Urban Planning Act, the facility standard rules have been delegated with the enactment of important standards and standards for urban planning facilities necessary for the determination of urban planning and the standards for the installation of facilities under Article 2(1)1(b) of the Urban Planning Act, and Article 13(1) [Attachment 2] of the facility standard rules stipulate the length of the corner of the road in order to ensure the smooth and smooth flow of traffic in the crosssection of the road, and are determined by the standards for urban planning facilities, in particular the standards for the installation of facilities of roads, and are within the scope of delegation under the main sentence of Article 12(3) and the main sentence of Article 16(2) of the Urban Planning Act. Accordingly, Article 13(1) of the facility standard rules is deemed to be combined with Article 12(1) of the Urban Planning Act and the main sentence of Article 16(2) of the same Act.

As long as Article 13(1) of the Facility Standards Rules has the nature of these laws and regulations, the legal nature of Article 13(1) of the Facility Standards Rules is limited to only the length of the corner of a road according to the intersection angle and the width of the two roads cross-sections as determined by the lower court, and it does not distinguish between the length of the corner of a road depending on whether another road crossings one road is used as a prone road that can enter or exit, or as a one-way road that can enter or exit only, or even if it is somewhat unreasonable because the starting point of the corner of a road does not differ from the starting point of each road depending on whether two widths and cross-sections can enter or exit, the legal nature of Article 13(1) of the Facility Standards Rules does not go against the Defendant’s internal rules.

In addition, as the standard for determining the length of the corner of a road under Article 13(1) of the Facility Standards Rule, inasmuch as the width and the intersection angle of two roads which have the largest influence on securing a smooth traffic and visible distance are specified in detail, it cannot be deemed unfair by failing to consider a relatively small passing method, etc., and the passing method can be changed depending on necessity after the decision of urban planning facilities (road) is made, and it is not necessary to determine the length of the corner of a road only on the premise of a specific passing method.

Nevertheless, the court below's decision that Article 13 (1) of the Facility Standards Rules is merely a business practice rule inside the defendant is erroneous in misunderstanding legal principles as to the legal nature of Article 13 (1) of the Facility Standards Rules.

B. In light of the special circumstances of the cross-section of the road, an administrative agency installs only the length of a corner of a road, which is more relaxed than the standard set forth in Article 13(1) [Attachment 2] of the Facility Standards Rule, which is a statutory order, in consideration of the special circumstances of the cross-section of the road, and where the urban planning line does not lack legitimacy and objectivity, the determination of the urban planning shall not be deemed to be a deviation from or abuse

According to the records, when the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City publicly notifies the cadastral approval of March 7, 1997, he plans the length of the corner of the road to 10.68 meters for the land of this case, etc., and he grants 4.8 meters of the corner of the road by expanding the road to 190-1991 (hereinafter referred to as "the attached Form 7 of the original judgment"), so he does not have to secure an excessive length of the road to 12m to 15m of the road by the alteration decision of urban planning facilities. However, it cannot be seen that the defendant secured an excessive length of the road to 4.8m of the road of this case without adjusting the length of the corner of the road of this case to 12m to 10m to 2m of the road of this case, and it cannot be seen that the road of this case cannot be resolved to secure an excessive length of the road of this case to 4.8m of the road of this case, while it cannot be seen that there is no way to secure the road of the remaining width of the road of this case.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the scope of discretion, although the disposition of this case was in violation of the law of deviation from or abuse of discretion.

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ahn Dai-hee (Presiding Justice)