A. Whether a land category needs to be changed to “the alteration of the form and quality of land” under the proviso of Article 4(1) of the former Urban Planning Act (amended by Act No. 4427 of Dec. 14, 1991) (negative)

(b) Whether it is necessary to obtain permission from the competent authority because it constitutes an alteration of the form and quality of land referred to in the above “A” in cases where the act of raising 0.6 through 1 meter in order to develop farmland on land, the category of which is still miscellaneous and the creation of farmland has not been completed, although it was subject to a completion inspection after obtaining permission for the collection of earth and rocks or the creation of farmland

(c) A case where there is no justifiable ground to believe that there is no permission from the competent administrative agency to change the form and quality of land;

A. “Change in the form and quality of land” under the proviso of Article 4(1) of the former Urban Planning Act (amended by Act No. 4427, Dec. 14, 191) means the act of changing the form and quality of land due to cutting, filling-up, suspension, etc. (excluding the act of excavating buildings and other structures within the existing site on which creation has been completed) and the act of reclaiming public waters, which means the act of actually changing the form and quality of land into the external form, and there is no need to change the land category of land.

(b) In the event that the project is conducted with the permission for the collection of soil and rocks and the development of farmland with the permission for the construction of the city and the development of farmland, but the land category is still miscellaneous land and the creation of farmland is not completed, it constitutes a change in the form and quality of land under Paragraph (a) above, which constitutes a change in the form and quality of land under Paragraph (1) 2 of Article 20 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, "it is deemed that such a change in the form and quality of land does not result in gathering a large quantity of soil and rocks, cutting standing trees, or does not interfere with the purpose of the designation of a development restriction zone" and "the act is accompanied by gathering soil and rocks for the exchange of dry paddy paddy paddy paddy paddy paddy field and the development of dry paddy field and dry paddy field" under subparagraph 12 of Article 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and therefore, it is necessary to obtain permission from the competent authority in the course

(c) The case holding that there is no justifiable reason to believe that there is no permission from the competent authority to change the form and quality of land.

(a)B. Article 4(1)1(b) of the former Urban Planning Act (amended by Act No. 4427 of Dec. 14, 191)(b) Article 20(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act and Article 8 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act. Article 2(1)1(c) of the Regulations on the Criteria, etc. for Permission for Change, etc. of Land Quality and Quality. Article 16 of the Criminal Act

B. Supreme Court Decision 83Nu226 delivered on July 12, 1983 (Gong1983,1292) 88Nu6856 delivered on September 12, 1989 (Gong1989,1479) 89Nu5294 delivered on January 25, 1990 (Gong190,562)

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Attorney Cho Jong-soo et al.

Busan District Court Decision 92No357 delivered on May 20, 1992

All appeals are dismissed.

The defendants and defense counsel's grounds of appeal are also examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that Defendant 1's delegation of the authority to construct additional farmland to Defendant 2 on the land of this case to the non-indicted 1, accompanied by a certificate of personal seal impression, and that the above movement is recognized to show it to the above defendant 2, and that the above movement was engaged in the filling work of this case necessary for the creation of farmland, and if the facts are as above, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are correct, and there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by recognizing a criminal facts, such as the theory of lawsuit, without evidence, by recognizing the above facts. The arguments are without merit.

2. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 4

In light of the purport of Articles 1, 4(1)1, 21(2) and (3) of the Urban Planning Act, Article 20(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Urban Planning Act (Decree No. 12799, Sept. 5, 1989), and Article 8 of the Enforcement Rule of the Urban Planning Act (Enforcement Rule No. 445, Feb. 3, 1989), the purpose of the above Act is to promote sound urban development and contribute to the maintenance of public safety and order and the promotion of public welfare within the urban planning zone, and to achieve the purpose of the above Act, the Minister of Construction and Transportation shall prohibit the alteration of the form and quality of land within the restricted area which can be designated when he deems it necessary to restrict urban development in order to prevent any disorderly expansion of urban areas and to preserve the natural environment surrounding the urban area to ensure the healthy living environment of the urban citizens, but the act of collecting soil and rocks without permission may be permitted within a certain limit, and the act of reclaiming land without permission shall be excluded from the act of reclaiming land form and quality of land or installing the existing land within 90.

기록에 의하여 살펴보면 피고인들은 이 사건 토지에 대하여 새로이 0.6내지 1미터 가량의 성토를 하였고, 1989.11.4.자 해운대구청장의 피고인 2에 대한 회시내용(소송기록 62면)에 의하면 이사건 토지와 함께 부산시가 건설부로부터 1979.6.7.자 및 1980.12.30.자로 토석채취행위허가 및 농경지조성공사 준공검사를 받은 부산 해운대구 석대동 591의 10 및 반여동 460의 1 지상의 농지개량 승인신청 필요여부에 대하여 질의하였던 바, 이미 농경지조성공사시행허가 및 준공검사가 있었음을 이유로 농촌근대화촉진법 제2조 제1항 다목(목) 에 해당하는 “개답 또는 개전”에 대하여는 승인이 필요하지 않으며, 판결에서 조성된 농경지가 농경지로서 미비하다고 인정하였으므로 농경지조성을 위한 추가행위는 가능하다고 회신하고 있고, 1989.12.11.자 해운대구청장의 피고인 2에 대한 농지개량사업승인신청서 반려(수사기록 33면) 내용은, 이 사건 토지 등에 대하여 농촌근대화촉진법 제105조 에 의한 농지개량사업승인신청이 필요한가 여부에 대한 것으로서, 앞서 본 바와같이 “개답 또는 개전”이나 “농지의 개량 또는 보전을 위하여 필요한 사업”에 대하여는 승인이 필요없다는 취지의 답변을 한 것이므로, 위 피고인이 이 사건 성토행위의 내용을 자세히 개진하여 그러한 행위가 구체적으로 허가나 승인을 요하지 않는 행위라고 회신을 받은 것은 아님을 알 수 있는바, 이 사건과 같은 성토행위는 지목여하와는 상관없이 이 사건 토지의 외부적 형상을 변경시킨 행위이고, 이 사건 토지에 대하여는 부산시가 1979.6.7.자로 토석채취 및 농경지조성공사 허가를 받아 공사를 하고(소송기록 45면 참조), 1980.12.30. 관할관청인 부산 해운대구청장으로부터 위 공사에 대한 준공검사를 받았으나 이는 어디까지나 위 공사가 끝났다는데 대한 검사일뿐 이사건 토지의 지목은 전(전)이나 답(답)과 같은 농경지로 되어있지 아니하고 여전히 잡종지(소송기록 39면, 이사건 토지등기부등본 참조)로 되어 있으므로 이러한 잡종지 안에서 사실상의 농경지 조성이 완료되지 아니한 이사건 토지에 대하여 농경지조성을 위하여 0.6 내지 1미터 가량의 성토행위를 한 것이므로, 이는 토지의 형질변경에 해당한다고 할 것이다. 그리고 이러한 형질변경행위는 도시계획법 제4조 제1항 단서, 같은법시행령 제20조 제1항 제2호 , 같은법시행규칙 제8조 제12호 에서 규정하는 “토지의 형질변경으로서 다량의 토석채취, 임목의 벌채를 수반하지 아니하거나 개발제한구역의 지정목적에 지장이 없다고 인정되는 것”으로서, “경작중인 전·답의 환토·객토용 토석의 채취 및 전답의 환토·개답·개간에 수반”되는 것이라고 할 수 있는 경미한 형질변경행위에도 해당하지 아니한다고 할 것이므로, 이 사건 성토행위를 함에는 관할관청의 허가를 받아야 한다 고 할 것이며, 피고인들이 이 사건 성토행위에 대한 허가 요부에 대하여 관할관청인 부산 해운대구청으로부터 위와 같은 회신을 받았다고 하여 위 회신의 내용에 비추어 볼 때 이 사건 성토행위가 허가를 요하지 않는 행위라고 단정하여 회신한 것은 아니라고 볼 수 있으며, 이 사건 토지의 전 소유자인 공소 외 이동우가 부산시를 상대로 제기한 손해배상판결의 기초가 된 감정서(소송기록 167면)에 의하더라도 이 사건 토지는 주위여건상 밭으로 조성함이 가하며 그 경우 0.5미터 이내의 높이로 성토를 하면 가능하다(소송기록 173면, 175면 참조)고 되어 있고, 피고인 2는 1990.1.10.에 부산 해운대구청장으로부터 이 사건 토지와 함께 부산시가 건설부로부터 1979.6.7.자 및 1980.12.30.자로 토석채취행위허가 및 농경지조성공사 준공검사를 받은 부산 해운대구 석대동 591의 10 및 반여동 460의 1 토지에 대한 토석채취허가신청에 대하여 “현재까지 농경지가 조성되지 않고 있으며, 지목은 잡종지로 되어 있고, 나아가 도시계획법 시행령 제20조 제1항 제2호 소정의 토지의 형질변경으로서 다량의 토석채취, 임목벌채를 수반하거나 개발제한구역의 지정목적에 지장이 없다고 인정되는 것”에 해당되지 아니하므로 허가할 수 없다는 취지의 회신(수사기록 64면)을 받았음을 알 수 있으므로 이러한 여러가지 상황을 종합하여 본다면, 피고인들이 부산해운대구청장의 위 1990.1.10.자 회신내용에 배치되는 그 이전인 1989.11.4.자와 같은해 12.11.자 회신만을 자신들에게 유리하게 해석하여 이 사건 토지형질변경행위에는 관할관청의 허가가 필요없다는 회신이 있은 것으로 믿었다는 것은 그렇게 믿은데 대하여 정당한 이유가 있는 것이라고 볼 수 없다 고 할 것이다.

In the above purport, the court below held that the defendants' act of raising land in this case constitutes an act of changing the form and quality of land, and such act of changing the form and quality of land does not constitute a case where there are justifiable grounds for believing that such act of changing the form and quality of land is unnecessary. Although the decision is somewhat insufficient, the conclusion of the decision is justifiable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to inconsistent reasoning or mistake of law, or in the misapprehension of legal principles as to Article 21 (2) and (3) of the Urban Planning Act, Article 20 (1) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 8 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, and Article 8 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, and there

3. On the third ground for appeal

In light of the records of the judgment below, on the premise that permission to collect earth and rocks and to create farmland in Busan City was already completed after completion inspection from the Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Office, the competent authority, on December 30, 1980, before examining whether permission to do so is a large quantity of permission, the court below held that the above permission to Busan City is only permission to Busan City and does not affect the alteration of the form and quality of land in this case's act of changing the form and quality of land. Thus, the above decision of the court below is proper, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding legal principles as to permission to collect earth and rocks and to develop farmland as well as permission to create farmland, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. There is no merit in the conclusion of the judgment.

4. Therefore, all appeals by the Defendants are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.