(a) If the public land is removed from the land and its location and topography are maintained without changing the location and topography, whether co-owners may exclusively benefit from the specific portion of the land substitution;

B. If an administrative agency which previously issued a building permit upon an application accompanied by relevant documents rejected the application for a new building permit on the same parcel of land without demanding the submission of relevant documents, whether it violates the principle of trust in the administration or the principle of criticism (negative)

(a) Where public land has been removed in the form, co-owners acquire co-ownership shares in the corresponding proportion to the previous land in the absence of special circumstances, such as: (a) co-owners are entitled to own a part of the land in a mutual title trust relationship with each other; or (b) co-owners intend to maintain and use and benefit from each other’s previous state of use as it is; and (c) co-owners may not exclusively benefit from the specific portion of the land in the form of land, on the ground that the land is so-called land substitution and the location and topography of the previous land are maintained without changing the location and topography of the land.

B. In applying for a previous building permit, documents evidencing the scope of the site to be constructed as required under Article 2(1)1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Building Act (including documents evidencing the ownership of a site or the right to use the site) are attached to the application, and even if the administrative agency granted permission on the said application, it cannot be attached to the application for a new permit on the same land if it applies for a permit, nor cannot the administrative agency be obliged to request the submission of the relevant documents. Moreover, it cannot be said that the administrative agency is bound to grant a permit as before. Thus, even if the administrative agency, which caused the submission of the construction permit on the application accompanied by the previous related documents, rejected the application for a building permit on the ground that it did not immediately attach the above related documents without urging the submission of the above related documents, the above disposition alone does not violate the principle of trust in the administration

A. Article 62 of the Land Readjustment Projects Act, Articles 262 and 186 of the Civil Act / [title trust] Article 8 of the Building Act and Article 2 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 77Da2299 delivered on June 27, 1978 (Gong1978, 10996) 80Da2157 delivered on February 10, 1981 (Gong1981, 13727) 91Da5983 delivered on May 28, 1991 (Gong191, 1755)

[Judgment of the court below]

The head of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu6189 delivered on September 19, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the court below's lawful determination, the 1,320 square meters of the land site in Mapo-gu ( Address 1 omitted) which the plaintiff applied for a building permit is part of the land ( Address 2 omitted) which was removed at 117 equal 7 square meters prior to 117 pieces 5,847.96 square meters and 8 parcels 3,464.9 square meters, and this is owned by 24 persons, including the plaintiff, etc., and in such cases, co-owners acquire co-ownership share of the previous land at the rate corresponding to the previous land in proportion to the land, unless there are special circumstances, such as where co-owners are entitled to own each part of the land in a mutual title trust relationship, or where co-owners intend to use and make profits from each of the previous land as they are, regardless of the change in the location and topography of the previous land without changing the location of the land and the features of the land.

In addition, in the previous application for building permission, if a building is newly constructed on the site without a building, the building permission is to be applied for on the land of this case, which is a public land, because it constitutes a new construction of a building on the site without a building, a document proving the scope of the site to be constructed under Article 2 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Building Act (including the document proving the ownership of the site or the right to use the site). Therefore, the application not accompanied by the above shall be deemed to fall short of the requirements for application

On the other hand, the previous application for a building permit on the same land was accompanied by the above relevant documents, and even if the administrative agency grants permission on the above application, it cannot be deemed that the application for a new permit is exempt from attachment, or that the administrative agency is bound to request the submission of relevant documents as before, and it cannot be said that the administrative agency is bound to grant permission as before. Thus, even if the defendant, who had issued a building permit on the application accompanied by the previous related documents, rejected the application for the building permit on the ground that the defendant did not immediately attach the above documents without urging the submission of the above documents, the above disposition alone cannot be deemed to violate the principle of trust in the administration or the principle of speech.

Therefore, the court below's decision that the defendant's return of the building permit of this case was legitimate because the plaintiff's application for construction permit of this case was not accompanied by the related documents under the Building Act is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the building permit of this case and the principle of gold speech such as theory of lawsuit.

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

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)