In order to be excluded from the imposition of excess ownership charges by reason of the restriction on permission under Article 12 of the Building Act, whether the application for a building permit under the Building Act must be made.

In light of the purport of Article 20(1)3 and 8 of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites, Article 21-2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13882 of May 10, 193), Article 26(1)10 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites, etc., the restriction on construction permission under the provisions of Article 12 of the Building Act does not completely prohibit the construction of housing, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the construction of housing is prohibited pursuant to related Acts and subordinate statutes, since the restriction on construction permission under the provisions of Article 12 of the Building Act does not completely prohibit the construction of housing. However, in order to be excluded from the subject of the imposition of charges, the building permission under the Building Act should not be applied for, but it should be specific that construction permission cannot be applied due to the restriction on construction permission.

Articles 20(1)3 and 20(1)8 of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites; Article 26(1)10 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites; Article 21-2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13882, May 10, 1993); Article 12 of the Building Act

Supreme Court Decision 94Nu7683 delivered on December 9, 1994 (Sang, 1995Sang)

Attorney Choi Ho-ho, Counsel for the plaintiff

Head of Busan Metropolitan City;

Busan High Court Decision 93Gu5697 delivered on May 25, 1994

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In full view of the purport of the provisions of Article 20 (1) 3 and 8 of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites, Article 21-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13882 of May 10, 1993), and Article 26 (1) 10 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13882 of the same Act), which was enforced at the time of the imposition of the charges for excess ownership of the housing site (hereinafter “charges”), a housing site for which it is impossible to construct according to the intention of the owner of the housing site concerned due to the restriction on construction permission under Article 12 of the Building Act shall not be deemed prohibited in full, and it shall not be deemed that the construction of the housing is prohibited pursuant to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, because the period of the duty of use and development is extended or it shall be treated as a housing site, and thus, it shall be excluded from the imposition of the charges. As such, in order to be excluded from the charges, it shall not necessarily be applied for construction permission.

However, according to the records, the Minister of Construction and Transportation has restricted a building permit for buildings exceeding a certain size from May 1990 to December 1992, which belongs to the imposition period of the charge of this case, from around May 1990 to the six cities including Busan Special Metropolitan City, which are the location of the site of this case. However, the plaintiff can recognize the fact that not only the restriction period but also the time of the disposition of this case, but also the time of the disposition of this case, the plaintiff did not go to any preparation act that can see that the plaintiff had the intention of the construction. Thus, the housing site of this case owned by the plaintiff did not meet the requirements for excluding the above imposition of the charge.

In the same purport, the decision of the court below that the housing site of this case does not constitute a ground for exclusion from the imposition of charges is acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles, such as the theory of lawsuit. There is no reason

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 Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)