Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Jong-sung, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

The head of substantial Gu

June 27, 2007

1. On June 23, 2006, the Defendant’s disposition on June 23, 2006, which was revoked on the part of the Plaintiff, as to a 500 square meters of forest land, 8752 square meters, the Defendant’s refusal of development activities and disposition against the building report.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 19, 2006, the Plaintiff filed an application for permission for development and a report on construction with the purport that the Plaintiff will change the form and quality of the instant land to the site and construct the said land on the ground of 50 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) among 8,752 square meters of forest land in Cheongju-si, U.S. (hereinafter referred to as “Cheongju-si”).

B. On June 23, 2006, the defendant rejected the above application, etc. on the ground that the access road abutting on the land of this case runs across a green area, on the ground that it is impossible to occupy and use a buffer green area for access roads under the Building Act pursuant to Article 38(1) and (2) of the Urban Park and Green Areas Act, Article 43 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and the guidelines for permission to occupy and use urban parks and green areas, so it is impossible to occupy and use a buffer green area for access roads under the Building Act, under Article 58 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act and Article 33 of the Building Act.

C. The instant land is located around the outer cycle of the first line, which is located in the vicinity of the outer cycle of the first line located in Yongsan-dong, Cheongju-si, U.S., and both sides of the said outer cycle road are the buffer green belt with the width of 5 meters following the cancellation of the surrounding development restriction zone due to the announcement of the decision to modify the Cheongju-do Urban Planning Act No. 2002-96 on February 9, 2002. In order to enter the instant land, the said buffer green belt part is street and the road with the width of 3 meters connected to the above outer cycle (the above 606-1 road, hereinafter referred to as the “instant access road”).

The access road of this case is a road where livestock farmers, etc. around the land of this case use it as a passage for vehicles, etc. since before the designation of the buffer green area. The buffer green area was a green area for an undeveloped green area, and the access road of this case was not cut off, but a side road is not installed instead of it. The above livestock farmers, etc. have to continue to use the access road of this case as a passage.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3 (including each number), Eul evidence 1-1 through 6, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8-1 through 10, and images, the result of the on-site inspection by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The parties' assertion

(1) Plaintiff

Since access roads connected to the land of this case have already been installed, the disposition of this case on the ground of securing access roads is unlawful.

(2) Defendant

In order to construct the land of this case, the access road of this case, which the land of this case is to be adjacent to the road under the Building Act, and the plaintiff intends to use as the access road leading to the land of this case, is a buffer green belt, and thus, it is used with the permission to occupy and use it. According to the related Acts and subordinate statutes and the guidelines for the permission to occupy and use an urban park and greenbelt, if it is intended to occupy and use it as a road under the Building Act with respect to the standards for the permission to occupy and use a green belt, it is clear that the plaintiff cannot obtain the permission to occupy and use

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

We examine whether the Plaintiff should obtain permission to occupy and use the access road to the instant land in order to use it as an access road to the instant land.

(1) In light of the provisions of Article 35 of the Urban Park, Green Areas, etc. Act (hereinafter “Urban Park Act”), Article 18(1)2, Article 3, and Article 18(4) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, green buffer areas installed on both sides of the roads are performing the function of blocking or relaxing pollution, such as exhausters, etc., generated on the roads, and performing the function as a refuge area at the time of accidents, and does not intend to limit development activities of land on the side. Under Article 38(1) of the Urban Park, Green Areas, etc. Act and Article 43 subparag. 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, permission to occupy and use green areas does not need to be separately designated as green buffer areas since it is not necessary for the Plaintiff to separately designate and use the green buffer areas as the green buffer area from before the construction of the buildings in the instant land is intended to construct the green belt areas, and it is not necessary for the Plaintiff to separately designate and use the green belt areas as the green buffer area.

(2) In light of Article 4 of the Guidelines for Permission to Occupy and Use Urban Parks and Greenbelts which the Defendant mainly used as the main ground for the instant disposition, it is clear that the Plaintiff does not intend to construct roads under Article 2(1)11 of the Building Act with respect to access roads crossing a green area, except in cases where it is intended to use them as “road under the Building Act” or a side road is opened. This guideline also appears to be premised on the new installation of access roads within a green area as stated in the above provisions of the Urban Park Act, and it is reasonable to view the term “road under the Building Act” as a road under Article 2(1)11 of the Building Act.

(3) Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition of this case, based on the premise that the Plaintiff should obtain permission to occupy and use the access road of this case, is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case is revoked and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Judges fishing confinement (Presiding Judge)