The nature of handling guidelines of permission for changing land form and quality of land in Seoul Metropolitan Government

In addition to the provisions of Article 4 (1) of the Regulations on the Criteria for Permission for Change, etc. of Land Quality and Quality (amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 517 of Nov. 19, 192), the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Guidelines for Affairs of Permission for Change, etc. of Land Quality and Quality (Seoul Municipal Rules No. 499 of the Seoul Metropolitan City) which separately provides for whether permission is subject to prohibition of change of land form and quality, which is almost identical to that of the former Rules on Permission for Change, etc. of Land (amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 517 of Nov. 19, 1992)

Articles 4(1)1 and 4(1)2 of the Urban Planning Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 517 of Nov. 19, 192), Articles 4(1)1 and 4(1)2 of the Regulations on the Standards, etc. for Permission for Change, etc. of Form and Quality of old Land

Supreme Court Decision 93Nu6591 delivered on June 8, 1993

Plaintiff

Head of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 92Gu22994 delivered on May 12, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 4 (1) 1 of the Urban Planning Act provides that any alteration of the form and quality of land, etc. in an urban planning zone shall not be permitted by the head of Si/Gun without permission, and Article 5-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that when granting permission under the provisions of Article 4 (1) of the same Act, the head of Si/Gun may interfere with the rational utilization of the land concerned or the urban planning project, which is not in conformity with the standards as determined by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation, it shall not be permitted. According to Article 4 (1) 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Standards, etc. for Permission for Change, etc. of Form and Quality of Land, which is the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation (amended by the Ordinance No. 517 of Nov. 19, 192), in light of the area, topographical conditions, etc. in which the implementation of the project concerned is highly inappropriate, it shall not be permitted to change the form and quality of

On the other hand, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Guidelines for Affairs of Permission for Change, etc. of Land Form and Quality (Seoul Metropolitan City Rules No. 499) separately prescribes whether permission is subject to regulation only for a certain period of time, in addition to the provisions of the above Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation as to whether permission for change of the form and quality of land is prohibited. In light of its contents and nature, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Rules are only the internal business rules of administrative agencies that have no effect as laws and regulations, so it cannot be deemed a legitimate disposition as a matter of course, and the legality of the disposition shall be separately determined in accordance with the relevant laws and regulations and the purport (see Supreme Court Decision 93Nu6

Although the court below did not have some defects in its expression, the present situation of the land in this case is a forest where the present situation of pine trees, Acarsia, the present city, etc. grow, but the land category in the public register is a general residential area, and even if houses are constructed by changing their form and quality, such as roads, building sites, national schools, etc. except small-scale children parks on the north-do, it is not likely that the surrounding environment, scenic view, etc. may be significantly damaged even if houses are constructed by changing their form and quality, and the topographical conditions do not seem to be very inappropriate for the construction of houses. Thus, the disposition of this case cannot be deemed as an object subject to the prohibition of permission under Article 4 (1) 1 and 2 of the Rules on the Criteria for Permission for Change, etc. of Form and Quality of the above Land because there is no reason to prohibit the change of the form and quality under the laws and regulations, it is justified in light of the records and relevant laws and regulations, and there is no such error as violating the law.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)