[1] In a case where the law different legislative purpose, etc. prescribes the requirements for a certain act, whether to determine whether to grant authorization or permission in consideration of the requirements under the provisions of each law (affirmative)

[2] The case affirming the judgment below which rejected the above application on the ground that it is objectively impossible to use a parking lot in a general residential area, in case where a general taxi transport business operator applied for the modification of the plan for the automobile transport business with the purport that the passenger taxi transport business transfers the garage to the land and building designated as a parking lot site on the urban planning facility

[1] If the law that differs from the legislative purpose provides for the requirements for a certain act, a certain act shall be subject to authorization or permission in accordance with the provisions of each law, unless it is clear that the law is applied exclusively in preference to other laws, and in such a case, it may be decided whether to grant authorization or permission in consideration of such requirements, such as where there are invoked the provisions for authorization or permission under other Acts and subordinate statutes, such as one of them, and where it is obvious that the act is absolutely prohibited by other Acts and subordinate statutes, and it is objectively impossible.

[2] The case affirming the judgment below which rejected the above application on the ground that it is objectively impossible to use a parking lot in a general residential area, in case where a general taxi transport business operator applied for the modification of the plan for the automobile transport business with the purport that the passenger taxi transport business transfers the garage to the land and building designated as a parking lot site on the urban planning facility

[1] Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [2] Article 1 (1) of the former Passenger Transport Service Act (amended by Act No. 6335 of Dec. 30, 200), Article 13 (1) [Attachment 1] of the former Enforcement Rule of the Passenger Transport Service Act (amended by the Enforcement Rule of the Passenger Transport Service Act No. 147 of Aug. 20, 1998), Article 13 (1) [Attachment 1] of the former Enforcement Rule of the Passenger Transport Service Act (amended by the Enforcement Rule of the Passenger Transport Service Act of Aug. 20, 1998), Article 12 (1) [Attachment 1-2] of the current Enforcement Rule of the Passenger Transport Service Act 2.

[1] Supreme Court Decision 94Nu3216 delivered on January 12, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 914), Supreme Court Decision 94Nu13497 delivered on July 28, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 3001), Supreme Court Decision 96Nu3036 delivered on June 28, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 2391), Supreme Court Decision 96Nu1972 delivered on March 27, 1998 (Gong198Sang, 1221)

Co., Ltd.

The head of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 99Nu11976 delivered on June 9, 2000

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

1. If the laws different from the legislative purpose provide for the requirements for a certain act in preference to other Acts, a certain Act shall apply exclusively to the act, unless it is so clear that the provisions for authorization and permission under other Acts shall apply exclusively to the act. In such cases, the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes concerning one of them are invoked in the provisions for authorization and permission under other Acts and subordinate statutes, or where it is obvious that the act is absolutely prohibited under other Acts and subordinate statutes and it is objectively impossible, the authorization and permission may be determined in consideration of such requirements (see Supreme Court Decisions 94Nu13497, Jul. 28, 1995; 96Nu1972, Mar. 27, 1998).

The Plaintiff, a general taxi transport business entity, designated his garage as a parking lot site on an urban planning facility as a general residential area, and partly filed an objection to the instant disposition and the instant lawsuit as of July 24, 1998 by the Defendant, who rejected his application, filed an application for the modification of the Motor Vehicle Transport Business Plan on the purport that the Plaintiff would transfer his garage to 1,830.2m2m2 (hereinafter referred to as “the instant land”) of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (No. 1,830m2, hereinafter referred to as “the instant land”) where the building with 2nd floor, 1,984m2 above ground floor, 1,984m2 below underground floor, 44 indoor self-owned shares, and 22 outdoor self-stocks (the main purpose: parking exclusive use, use for subsidiary use: neighborhood living facilities, below,

Therefore, the lower court determined that the first proviso of Article 13(1) [Attachment Table 1] of the former Enforcement Rule of the Automobile Transport Business Act merely provides for the minimum standard for the area of the car owned by automobile transport business operators, and that the first proviso of the same Article does not stipulate the standard for the area of the automobile-based and mechanical parking lots under the Enforcement Rule of the Parking Lot Act, and the building which is a parking lot under the Building Act, may be entirely excluded from the application of the Building Act and the Urban Planning Act, and it does not mean that the building or the land designated for the parking lot may be used for the parking lot without any restriction, and that the first proviso of the former Enforcement Rule is premised on the exclusive use of a specific person (see Article 2 subparag. 1 of the former Parking Lot Act) and thus, it conforms to the construction-related laws and the Seoul Metropolitan Government Ordinance on Building as at the time of the application for approval, and in particular, the construction of a car in a general residential area is not likely to infringe on the residential environment or the first urban planning facility.

In light of the records, relevant statutes, and the above legal principles, the judgment of the court below is justified and there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the alteration of the automobile transport business plan or the deviation and abuse of discretionary power.

2. In addition, the court below determined the propriety of the disposition of this case as follows: it was conducted in accordance with the laws and regulations in force at the time of the disposition, and since January 6, 1996 after the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act was amended on December 30, 1995 and enforced on January 6, 1996, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Building Ordinance was also amended on August 10, 1996, and excluded the difference from height while opening the automobile-related facilities such as parking lots, detailed driving institutes, and maintenance driving institutes, which can be constructed within the general residential area under Article 21. Thus, it is impossible to construct the difference in a general residential area after the amendment of the above ordinances, and it was impossible to construct the building at the time of the amendment of the above ordinances until December 5, 1997, and therefore, it did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the building permit of this case or the building permit of this case as of July 26, 1997.

3. Pursuant to Article 21 of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Building Ordinance (amended on April 30, 1998), whether to designate and publicly announce a site abutting on a road with a width of at least 12 meters within a general residential area as an area where a garage is able to be constructed through certain procedures is interpreted as a matter to be determined at the discretion of the head of the Gu, taking into account the residential environment, local circumstances, etc. of residents. Thus, the mere fact that there was no designation and public announcement does not immediately lead to

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is correct and there is no violation of law by misapprehending the relevant legal principles.

All of the arguments in the grounds of appeal are rejected.

4. Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Shin Shin-chul (Presiding Justice)