Where the Administrator of the Cultural Heritage Administration rejected an application for permission to change the current state of cultural heritage for the new construction of a general restaurant by a landowner in a protection zone of "Seong-Eup Folk Village" designated as State-designated cultural heritage, the case holding that such disposition

In a case where the Administrator of the Cultural Heritage Administration rejected an application for permission to change the current state of cultural heritage for the construction of a general restaurant by a landowner in a protection zone of "Seong-Eup Folk Village" designated as State-designated cultural heritage, the case holding that the above disposition cannot be deemed unlawful by abusing discretion, on the grounds that if a general restaurant is newly constructed, such as where the place of application for a building permit is located in a cultural heritage protection zone and where it is anticipated that it would be indisrut development within a Seongbuk Folk Village Protection Zone, and most of the existing buildings, which are convenience facilities for village residents and public

Articles 2(1)4 and (4), 3, 13, 26, 35(1), and 36 of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act; Article 15(1)3(a) of Enforcement Rule of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act; Article 15(1)3(a) of Enforcement Rule of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act

[Judgment of the court below]

The Administrator of the Cultural Heritage Administration (Attorney Jeong-ju, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

November 30, 2011

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

On April 8, 2011, the Defendant revoked the rejection disposition of the alteration of the current state with respect to the construction of a general restaurant in the Seongdong-do Folk Village with the Plaintiff on April 8, 201 (which appears to be a clerical error on May 6, 201).

1. Details of the disposition;

The following facts may be recognized, either in dispute between the parties, or in full view of the entries in Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1, and the whole purport of pleadings:

A. On February 11, 2011, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for permission to change the current state of State-designated cultural heritage with the purport of newly constructing a Class II neighborhood living facility (general restaurant) on the ground of the 2,155 square meters (hereinafter “instant application site”) prior to the Seopo-Eup, Seopo-si, Seopo-si, Seopo-si (number 1 omitted) (hereinafter “instant application”).

B. On April 8, 2011, the Defendant rejected the instant application on the ground that, if a general restaurant is newly constructed in the instant application site, it would hinder the historical and cultural environment (village landscape) of the Seongdong-do Folk Village (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In light of the fact that the application site of this case is located on the outer side of the Seongbuk-Eup Folk Village, there is a considerable distance from the center of the Seongbuk-Eup Folk Village; the application site of this case is merely a flat cultivation without any special natural landscape; the application site of this case has already been considerably large number of houses, neighborhood living facilities, public facilities; and the Plaintiff is seeking to construct a building in which the Jeju Folk Village is in the form, taking into account the surrounding landscape into account, it is difficult to regard the application of this case as damaging the historical and cultural environment of the Seongbuk-Eup Folk Village; and thus, it violates the principle of equity. Therefore, the disposition of this case is unlawful and unjust.

B. Relevant statutes

[Attachment] The entry is as follows.

C. Determination

1) Facts of recognition

In full view of Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 7, Eul evidence Nos. 5 and 6, and the records and videos (including each number, if any) and the purport of this court’s on-site inspection and the whole pleadings, the fact that the Seongdong-do Folk Village located in Seongbuk-si is an important folklore resources; the fact that the application of this case is located adjacent to the second line ice Contac in the protection zone of the Seongdong-do Folk Village; the building is not located in the land adjacent to the application of this case; most of the buildings are used; the housing complex is formed within a distance of 100 meters from the application of this case; the above housing complex exists outside the protection zone of Seongbuk-do Folk Village; the current housing complex is located outside the development zone of Sung-Eup Do Ga; the elderly welfare center of Sung-Eup Do 1, Seongdong-ri Do 1, and the non-party (the non-party)'s house is located within the protection zone of Sung-si Do 2, despite the submission of the above cultural property number by the defendant.

2) Determination

According to the Cultural Heritage Protection Act, the cultural heritage protection zone designated to protect the cultural heritage itself and the historical, artistic, academic, and scenic value of the cultural heritage, and other necessary matters for the protection of the cultural heritage are distinguished from a historic and cultural environment preservation zone designated within 500 meters from the outer boundary. The application of this case is located within a historic and cultural environment preservation zone, not a historical and cultural environment preservation zone. The cultural heritage protection law is based on the basic principles for the preservation, management and utilization of cultural heritage. The passage of vehicles located on the roadside of the city where the application of this case is located on the road, and is expected to be considerably high. The landscape of cultural heritage is the concept of harmony with the historical, cultural, and cultural value of cultural heritage that goes beyond a simple view, and thus, it is difficult to readily conclude that the application of this case is likely to undermine the overall management of the neighboring local village and Eup's surrounding local environment because it is difficult to see that the application of this case is not likely to undermine the overall management of the surrounding local community and Eup's surrounding local environment.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment] Relevant Statutes: omitted

Judges injured Persons (Presiding Judge) and Jin-Jin for Kim Ho-ho