The concept of "inland adjacent to or adjacent village" under Article 7 (1) 3 (g) (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Urban Planning Act, which permits the relocation of land within a development-restricted area;

In light of the purpose of designating development restriction zones and the purport and contents of the relevant provisions, "in principle, neighboring land or neighboring village", which is a site where the removal of a building removed by public works, etc. in a development restriction zone can be permitted under Article 7 (1) 3 (g) (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Urban Planning Act, shall be located in an Eup/Myeon/Dong, such as an Eup/Myeon/Dong where the removed existing building was located. However, if a living smoke notice is lost, it shall be interpreted that it includes land or village located in another Eup/Myeon/Dong where the existing building is located and bordered with the Eup/Myeon/Dong where the existing building is located.

Article 21 of the Urban Planning Act, Article 20 (1) 1 (f) of the Enforcement Decree of the former Urban Planning Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14447 of December 23, 1994), Article 7 (1) 3 (g) (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Urban Planning Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Lee Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff (Attorney Lee Dong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Sungnam City

Seoul High Court Decision 94Gu23021 delivered on June 13, 1995

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the provisions of Article 21(2) and (3) of the Urban Planning Act, Article 20(1)1(f) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14447 of Dec. 23, 1994), Article 7(1)3(g)(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act and Article 7(1)3(g) of the same Act, a building cannot be constructed in a development restriction zone against the purpose of the designation of the zone. However, a building cannot be constructed in a development restriction zone with permission from the competent authority within two years after the removal of the building or structure.

In light of the purpose of designating development restriction zones and the purport and contents of the above relevant provisions, "in principle, neighboring land or neighboring village", which is a branch where a building removed from the above project can be permitted to be relocated pursuant to Article 7 (1) 3 (g) (1) of the above Enforcement Rule, shall be located in the Eup/Myeon/Dong, such as the Eup/Myeon/Dong where an existing building removed was located. However, if a daily living notice is lost, it shall be interpreted that it includes the land or village located in another Eup/Myeon/Dong where the existing building is located and bordered with the Eup/Myeon/Dong where the existing building is located.

According to the records, the plaintiff filed an application for a building permit with the same area as the house relocation site located in the area of development restriction as the house of 2,035 square meters (hereinafter "the land in this case"), which was located in the area of development restriction, since the house of 5,720 square meters on the ground of 5,720 square meters located in the area of development restriction was removed due to the expressway construction, the plaintiff did not correspond to the land within the scope permitted for the removal of the removed house. However, the land in this case does not correspond to the land within the scope permitted for the removal of the demolished-dong, which was located in the area of development restriction.

Therefore, the court below is just in holding that the defendant's disposition of denying the plaintiff's request for a transfer to the land of this case is legitimate, and there is no error of law as pointed out in the theory of the court below as to this part, and the court below erred in the application of the above Enforcement Rule, although the relevant provision of the above Enforcement Rule was already amended at the time of the plaintiff's request for a building permit, or found the facts erroneous as to the situation near the land of this case, it cannot be accepted as it does not affect the

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 on the bench.

Justices Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)