[1] Whether a annexation between parcels within a demarcated land under a detailed plan or construction on the combined land is permitted (affirmative)

[2] The case holding that a provisional disposition on the rejection of construction was an abuse of discretion on the ground that there is no change in a detailed plan to allow the annexation of parcels within a detailed planning zone

[3] The base point for determining the legitimacy of administrative disposition (=the time of disposition)

[1] In full view of the provisions of Article 20-3 of the former Urban Planning Act (amended by Act No. 6243 of Jan. 28, 200), Articles 9(2) and 16(3) of the former Housing Site Development Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 6655 of Feb. 4, 2002), the legislative intent of designating a housing site development area as a detailed planning area and allowing the implementation and management of a housing site development project according to a detailed plan is to ensure balanced and reasonable development of the city by efficiently maintaining and managing the functions, pipes, and environments of the city by limiting the use, size, building-to-land ratio, floor area ratio, height, etc. of buildings within the housing site development planning area. The reason why the size of the demarcated land (referring to a group of land partitioned for a planned development or improvement) is to achieve the purpose of the land use plan by rationalizing the land use plan so as not to cause economic losses and environmental deterioration due to the excessive or insufficient size of the demarcated land and thus, it does not violate the intrinsic purpose of the relevant construction plan.

[2] The case holding that a provisional disposition on the rejection of construction was an abuse of discretionary power on the grounds that there is no change in a detailed plan to allow the annexation of parcels within a detailed planning zone

[3] Whether an administrative disposition is lawful shall be determined on the basis of the statutes and factual conditions at the time of the disposition, except in extenuating circumstances.

[1] Article 20-3 of the former Urban Planning Act (amended by Act No. 6243 of Jan. 28, 200), Article 20-3 [see Articles 42 and 43 of the current Act, Article 7 of the Addenda (amended by Act No. 6655 of Jan. 28, 200), Article 9 (2) and Article 16 (3) of the former Housing Site Development Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 6655 of Feb. 4, 2002), Article 20-3 [2] Article 20-3 of the former Urban Planning Act (amended by Act No. 6243 of Jan. 28, 200), Article 7 of the Addenda (amended by Act No. 6243 of Jan. 28, 200), Article 9 (2) of the former Housing Site Development Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 655 of Feb. 4, 2002] Article 9 (2), Article 7 (3) of the Administrative Litigation Act]

[3] Supreme Court Decision 92Nu19033 delivered on May 27, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 1908), Supreme Court Decision 95Nu8461 delivered on November 10, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 3935), Supreme Court Decision 96Nu979 delivered on December 20, 196 (Gong1997Sang, 410), Supreme Court Decision 2001Du10684 Delivered on July 9, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 1962)

EL branch Distribution Co., Ltd. (Attorney Cho Jae-hee, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

South Ocean Market

Seoul High Court Decision 2001Nu12316 delivered on April 17, 2002

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. The court below acknowledged the facts based on the evidence, and found the following facts to be established. The court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the construction and use of the above land within the scope of an area where the housing site development project is to be executed and managed in accordance with the detailed plan, considering that the construction and use of the land within the area where the housing site development project is to be executed and its size, building-to-land ratio, floor area ratio, height, etc. by efficiently maintaining and managing the functions and environment of the city within the area where the housing site development project is planned, and the construction and use of the land within the area is not allowed under the premise that the construction and use of the area is not within the scope of the area where the above land is inappropriate because the construction and use of the area is not within the boundary of the area where the construction and use of the area is not within the boundary of the area where the construction and use of the area is not within the boundary of the area where the construction and use of the land is not within the boundary of the area where the construction and use of the area is inappropriate and efficient.

2. Whether an administrative disposition is lawful shall be determined on the basis of the statutes and facts at the time of the disposition, barring special circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 96Nu9799, Dec. 20, 1996, etc.). Thus, the defendant's ground of appeal purporting that where an application for extension of the above building was filed in the future, the legality of the disposition in this case shall be determined on the basis of the traffic impact assessment as well as the fact that the building should undergo an environmental

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

Justices Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)