Plaintiff 1 and one other (Law Firm Min Jae, Attorney Park Jong-woo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

port of destination

May 17, 2016

Suwon District Court Decision 2014Guhap50706 Decided September 9, 2015

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. On October 29, 2013, the rejection of each application filed by the Defendant to grant permission for mountainous district conversion design to the Plaintiffs is revoked.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Quotation of the first instance judgment

The reasoning of the judgment of this court is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal under Section 2-C of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of

2. Parts in height:

C. Determination

First, I examine the second argument.

1) According to Articles 39(1) and 40(1) of the former Management of Mountainous Districts Act, a person who has obtained permission for conversion of a mountainous district under Article 14 of the former Management of Mountainous Districts Act shall restore a mountainous district upon obtaining approval from the competent authority for restoration when the purpose of conversion of a mountainous district is completed or the period of conversion expires. As such, even if the period of conversion of a mountainous district expires, a person who has obtained permission for conversion of a mountainous district has not completed the purpose of conversion of a mountainous district, the person who has obtained permission for conversion of a mountainous district has a duty to recover the mountainous district under the aforementioned provisions. Therefore, a disposition made by the competent authority on the ground that a person who has obtained permission for conversion of a mountainous district for the fulfillment of such duty has not completed the purpose of conversion of a mountainous district (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2009Du18035, Feb. 11, 201;

2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the Plaintiffs filed each of the instant applications with the Defendant for approval of the design following the completion of the intended project after the expiry of the period of conversion of each of the instant mountainous district conversion permission ( Plaintiffs 1 and 2 until July 3, 2005, and January 24, 2006) on October 2013. However, the Defendant, on October 29, 2013, rejected each of the instant dispositions on the grounds that the Plaintiffs, for whom the duty to restore mountainous district was incurred, did not complete the intended purpose of each of the instant mountainous district conversion permission. As seen earlier, the Defendant’s each of the instant dispositions was unlawful without having to consider the remainder of the Plaintiffs’ remaining arguments.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiffs' claims are justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, so the appeal of the plaintiffs is accepted and the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Landscaping (Presiding Judge)