Whether or not the designation of an area, district or zone provided for in Section 2 of Chapter 2 of the former Urban Planning Act can be seen as having been completed with the implementation of urban planning, and the requirements for changing the form and quality of land in a zone or district designated under Article 17 or 18 of the same Act.

In full view of the provisions of Article 17 of the Urban Planning Act, Articles 2(1)1, 4(1), 18, and 19 of the former Urban Planning Act (amended by Act No. 4427 of Dec. 14, 191), if an urban planning is designated as a district or district under Section 2 of Chapter 2 of the same Act, it shall be deemed that an urban planning is continuously implemented (i.e., a district or district) prior to the cancellation of the designation; on the sole basis of the designation of a district or district, it shall not be deemed that an urban planning is implemented (i.e., a “execution”). Thus, in order to perform an act of changing the form and quality of land in an area or district designated under Article 17 or 18 of the same Act, it shall obtain permission from the head of Si/Gun pursuant to Article 4(1) of the same Act, and Article 19(1) of the same Act does not exclude the above land from the purport of Article 4(1) of the same Act.

Article 17 of the Urban Planning Act, Articles 2(1), 4(1), 18 and 19(1) of the former Urban Planning Act

[Defendant-Appellant] Hanwon Construction Co., Ltd., Counsel for defendant-appellant

Attorney Cho Jae-woo, Counsel for the head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 92Gu4422 delivered on August 18, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. Judgment on the ground of appeal No. 1 (A) by the Plaintiff’s attorney

In full view of the provisions of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes such as Article 2(1)1, Article 4(1), Article 17, Article 18, and Article 19 of the Urban Planning Act (amended by Act No. 4427 of Dec. 14, 191; hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), the court below held that, in a case where an area, district, or district is designated under Section 2 of Chapter II of the Act through an urban planning, the urban planning should continue to be implemented until the designation is cancelled; on the ground that the designation of the area, district, or district was made, the urban planning cannot be seen as being implemented immediately (i.e., the "execution is completed"), and therefore, the decision of the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the above provision of Article 4(1) of the Act or the above provision of the Act, since Article 19(1) of the Act is subject to permission of the head of Si/Gun in order to alter the form and quality of land within the area or district designated under Article 17 or 18 of the Act.

2. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 1(B)

In light of the provisions of Article 4(1) of this Act and Article 5-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Urban Planning Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13684, Jul. 1, 1992; hereafter referred to as the "Decree"), Article 10 of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Guidelines for Handling Activities such as Change of Land Quality and Quality, etc. cannot be deemed to exceed the scope of delegation of the above Act, such as the theory of lawsuit. Thus, there is no reason to criticize that Article 10 of the above Guidelines is valid, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on the

3. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 2

In full view of the actual status of the land in this case, the court below held that if the form and quality of the land in this case are changed, it may seriously damage the surrounding environment landscape, etc., and that the land in this case is connected to the land in which the construction of a building is extremely inappropriate due to the alteration of form and quality and quality in light of topographical conditions, etc. and the partial development of an individual parcel of land is deemed unreasonable in light of the overall land use. Thus, even if the land in this case belongs to the exclusive residential area and the land category is the land site, the defendant's refusal of the plaintiff's request for permission to change the form and quality of the land in this case cannot be deemed to deviate from discretionary power as it goes against the relevant laws and regulations, such as the Regulation on the Criteria, etc. for Permission to Change the Form and Quality of Land in Article 5-2 of the Decree of Article 4 (1) of the Act, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding

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

Justices Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)