Effect of building permit disposition in the urban planning zone;

Pursuant to Articles 22 and 4 of the former Urban Planning Act with respect to some areas of Seoi-dong, Gwangju-si, including the building site of the plaintiffs, the Minister of Construction and Transportation established and publicly announced the education district of the defendant assistant intervenor and delegated the authority of the said Minister to the said Minister pursuant to the announcement No. 49 of March 18, 1970. The notification No. 96 of May 25, 1970 with respect to the part of the above education district was made and publicly announced as the notification No. 123 of June 25, 1970 with respect to the execution of the above education district by the defendant assistant intervenor as the notification No. 123 of June 25, 1970 with respect to the building site of the plaintiffs, the permission-granting authority under the Building Act and the permission-granting authority under Article 13 of the former Urban Planning Act are the same defendant Gwangju-si market with respect to the building site of this case, and the permission-building permit was granted to the plaintiffs under this construction permit.

Articles 33 and 47 of the Building Act

Supreme Court Decision 74Nu64 delivered on December 24, 1974 (Supreme Court Decision 10876 delivered on December 24, 1974; Supreme Court Decision 223Nu46 delivered on December 26, 200; Decision No. 1371, Oct. 18, 200; Decision No. 506No8257

100,000 et al.

Gwangju Market

The Korea National University of Education

Defendant:

(1) The disposition of revocation of the building permit No. 284 of Nov. 5, 1970, against the Plaintiff-Echeon on Mar. 31, 1971 by the Defendant, for the same person as of Mar. 31, 1971;

(2) On the part of the plaintiff Whee, the revocation of the construction permit No. 1323 of November 16, 1970 against the defendant as of March 27, 197, against the Dongman who was named on March 27, 1971;

(3) On November 5, 1970, the disposition of revocation of the building permit No. 285, which was issued by the defendant as of March 31, 1971, against the plaintiff Kim Jong-chul;

(4) The disposition of revocation of the building permit No. 287 of Nov. 5, 1970, against the Plaintiff’s deceased rank as of Mar. 31, 1971 by the Defendant on Nov. 5, 1970;

(5) The disposition of revocation of the building permit No. 321 of Nov. 18, 1970 against the Plaintiff Park Young-man by the Defendant as of April 9, 1971;

(6) The disposition of revocation of the building permit No. 286 of Nov. 5, 1970 against the plaintiff Jeong-nam, who was the defendant as of Mar. 31, 1971;

(7) As to the Plaintiff’s higher contribution, the Defendant’s revocation of the construction permit No. 290 of November 5, 1970 against the same person as of March 31, 1971 shall be revoked, respectively.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

As stated in the order, the fact that the Defendant revoked the above building permit against the Plaintiffs as of the date on which the order was issued, on the ground that it misleads the Plaintiffs of the area where the business executor was designated as the educational district, is not a dispute between the parties.

First of all, I look at the main safety defense.

The defendant's legal representative's revocation of permission for this case by the plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff

For the following bills:

The Plaintiffs’ Attorney:

(1) On September 26, 1967, the Defendant’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Educational Foundation, with the approval of a project implementation plan partially approved on December 6, 1967, announced land and goods tax, including the building site, but the authorization of the above project implementation plan was null and void by a final and conclusive judgment (Supreme Court Decision 69No. 12, May 12, 1970 and Supreme Court Decision 70Nu85, August 31, 197), and thus, Article 13 of the Urban Planning Act was no longer effective in the area where the designation of the project executor was based on the authorization of the above implementation plan, and thus, the instant disposition of revocation of the construction permit is unlawful and unjust.

(2) The cancellation of this construction permit is illegal and unjust on the ground that the Defendant was granted the construction permit due to the mistake of the designated area of the business executor as an educational district, as it is permitted in light of the provisions of Article 13 of the Urban Planning Act (Land Preservation);

(3) Even if it is assumed that it would be the ground for cancellation of this case's construction permit that the construction permit was made by mistake of the designated area of the proprietor of the construction project as the education district, the construction permit can be made pursuant to the provisions of Article 13 of the Urban Planning Act. The construction permit was completed or 70 percent or more of the construction work, and the cancellation of this permit should be revoked because it is extremely unfair disposition in light of the national housing policy or the national economy. The defendant's legal representative and the defendant's assistant intervenor, who established and announced the education district under the Urban Planning Act for the area of Seo-gu, Seo-dong, Seo-dong, Seo-dong, Seo-dong, Busan, including the plaintiffs' construction site, etc., and the above assistant's designation and announcement of educational facility confirmation and announcement of the designation of the executor of the construction project made the preparation for the application of tax items under Article 11 of the Urban Planning Act. Thus, in order for the plaintiffs to newly construct the building on the land, the plaintiffs' construction permit under the Building Act was obtained after obtaining the construction permit under Article 13 of the former Urban Planning Act.

A person who intends to construct, rebuild, etc. a structure on the land needed for an urban planning project after a public notice was given under Article 7 of the former Urban Planning Act (Act No. 1912, Mar. 14, 1967) at the time of this construction permit shall obtain in advance the permission of the head of Si/Gun having jurisdiction over the area (Article 13 of the former Urban Planning Act), and pursuant to Article 7 (Public Notice) of the former Urban Planning Act (Article 13 of the same Act), the Minister of Construction and Transportation shall issue a decision under Article 4 (Determination of Area and Plan), or makes a disposition under Article 5 (2) (Authorization of Execution Plan), or 5 (2) (Public Notice of Execution Plan).

Therefore, a person who intends to construct a new building on the land required for the urban planning project in which the notice of Article 7 of the above Act is given should obtain the permission under Article 13 of the Urban Planning Act and the Building Act.

However, if the entries in the evidence Nos. 2-1, 2-2, 3-1, 5, 9,10 of Eul evidence Nos. 2-1, 3-1, 5, 5, 9, 10 of Eul evidence Nos. 2-1, 5, 5, 10 of Eul evidence, including the plaintiffs' main building site, are combined with the whole purport of the pleadings, the Minister of Construction and Transportation shall, under Articles 22 and 4 of the former Urban Planning Act, establish and publicly notify the defendant's educational district as the defendant's education district (No. 144 of Feb. 20, 1967) under Article 4 of the former Urban Planning Act, and before the Minister of Construction and Transportation delegated the authority of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation as the education district No. 49 of Mar. 18, 1970, the above Do governor shall determine the education district's urban planning facility (school facilities) as part of the education district and the defendant's school foundation's new construction site should be notified under Article 1616 of the same Act.

However, with respect to the plaintiffs' principal building site, the permission-granting under the Building Act and the permission-granting under Article 13 of the former Urban Planning Act are the same defendant Gwangju metropolitan market and the defendant metropolitan market, with the knowledge that the building site is an educational district under the Urban Planning Act. Thus, the defendant's construction permission disposition on the principal building site shall be deemed to have been permitted under the Building Act and Article 13 of the former Urban Planning Act. Therefore, the defendant's building permission on the principal building site is legitimate, and therefore, the reason that the defendant misleads the designated area of the business executor as the educational district is not a legitimate ground for revocation.

(3) In the absence of special circumstances, such as that even if it is assumed that there is a defect in the disposition of permission taken by the Defendant, some plaintiffs already completed the construction and applied for authorization of completion, and the remaining plaintiffs are not able to revoke the construction permission in this case, which was completed by the Corporation from 50 to 70 percent, unless there are special circumstances, such as that the revocation of the construction permission is an infringement of the people's property acquired by the Corporation

Therefore, since the cancellation of the defendant's original permission disposition cannot be unlawful, the cancellation of the defendant's original permission disposition against the plaintiffs cannot be exempted from its revocation. Thus, since the plaintiffs' main claim is reasonable, it is accepted, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Park Young-young (Presiding Judge)