(a) Buildings and structures that can be installed within a development-restricted zone under the Urban Planning Act;

(b) The case holding that a disposition of non-permission for fishing operations is justifiable, since it is not possible to construct incidental facilities for fishing operations in a fish farm located within a development restriction zone;

(a)No construction or installation of a building or structure in violation of the purpose of the designation of the zone may be carried out within the development restriction zone under the Urban Planning Act: Provided, That construction or installation of a building or structure falling under subparagraph 1 of Article 20 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, which is deemed not to impede the purpose of the designation of the development restriction zone, may be carried out with permission of the competent authorities only on the scale of the building and structure as provided in paragraph 1 of Article 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and matters not listed shall

(b) The case holding that since Article 7 (1) 1 (k) of the Enforcement Rule of the Urban Planning Act provides that fishing grounds and their incidental facilities are stipulated in Article 7 (1) 1 (k) of the Enforcement Rule of the Urban Planning Act, and fishing facilities are not included in fishing facilities, it is not possible to construct incidental facilities for fishing operations in the fish farm located within a development-restricted area, and therefore, the disposition of non-permission of fishing operations to the

(a)Article 21 of the Urban Planning Act, Article 20 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 7 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, Article 8 of the Inland Water Fisheries Development Promotion Act, Article 36 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 88Nu1186 delivered on November 10, 1989 (Gong1990,44). Supreme Court Decision 88Nu6856 delivered on September 12, 1989 (Gong1989,1479), Supreme Court Decision 90Nu2055 delivered on July 10, 1990 (Gong190,1719)

[Judgment of the court below]

Sung-nam City (Attorney Kim Tae-Gyeong, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu14845 delivered on September 6, 1991

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court: (a) deemed that it is difficult for the Plaintiff to legally permit the above-mentioned fishing industry to operate the above-mentioned fishing industry with the permission of the head of the competent Si/Gun; (b) provided that the above-mentioned fishing industry in inland waters should be permitted to promote the comprehensive development of inland fisheries, protect fishery resources, and increase the income of farmers and fishermen; (c) on the other hand, pursuant to Article 21 of the Urban Planning Act and Article 20 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act and Article 7 of the same Act, the Minister of Construction and Transportation deems it necessary to restrict urban development by preventing urban spreading and preserving the natural environment surrounding the city and to ensure the healthy living environment of the city; (d) on the other hand, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff’s construction permission of the above-mentioned fishing industry to be in conflict with the purpose of designating the above-mentioned fishing zone, and that the construction permission of the above-mentioned fishing zone may not be executed within 00 meters from the construction of the above-mentioned fishing zone.

2. The permission for fishing business is made based on the Inland Fisheries Development Promotion Act, so the illegality of the permission for fishing business in this case should first be determined in accordance with the purport of the provisions, such as the Inland Water Fisheries Development Promotion Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. According to Article 13 of the same Act and Article 3 of the Fishing Place Operation Management Regulations enacted pursuant to the provisions of Article 36 of the same Enforcement Decree, a fishing place shall have management offices, rest areas, water supply facilities, toilets, garbage disposal facilities, etc. installed in the fishing place, and the person who intends to obtain permission for fishing business in Article 2 shall have basic facilities in accordance with the standards set forth in attached Table 1 at the relevant place of business. According to the attached Table 1, Article 21 of the Urban Planning Act, Article 20 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 7 of the same Enforcement Rule, the construction of a minor building or structure in violation of the purpose of the designation of the area shall not be implemented within the limited area, and the construction of a building and its incidental facilities shall not interfere with the purpose of Article 18 of the Enforcement Rule.

3. The court below held that the act of fishing fishing is not necessary to construct a building or install a structure since the above fishing ground has already been constructed to be suitable for fishing business. However, according to the records, it can be found that the defendant, as one of the conditions of permission, was attached to the building of a manager who is a fish farm and its appurtenant facilities, that the management company should not be used for other purposes, and that the act of fishing, etc. should not be used for the other purposes in the fish farm. Thus, the plaintiff's act of fishing using the facilities of the fish farm as they are in violation of the conditions of permission for the fish farm.

In determining the illegality of the non-permission disposition of this case, the court below did not examine the laws and regulations on the basis of the permission and the permission standards in detail, and judged that the plaintiff's application of this case does not conflict with the laws and regulations. Furthermore, even if the court below erred, the plaintiff's economic efforts, etc. were merely leased the fish farm of 50,000,000 won, and the purport of the provisions of the Inland Fisheries Development Promotion Act, etc., the defendant's non-permission disposition is easily judged as abuse of discretionary power. The court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the relation between the inland Fisheries Development Promotion Act, the Urban Planning Act, the Enforcement Decree thereof, and the Enforcement Rules thereof, and by misunderstanding the legal principles on abuse of discretionary power.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)