The case affirming the judgment of the court below that the rejection of an application for construction permit was unlawful solely on the ground that there is a civil petition filed by neighboring residents even though the construction of a funeral hall does not fall under the construction of a building for remarkably inappropriate use in light of the current use of neighboring land

The case affirming the judgment of the court below that a disposition rejecting an application for building permission was unlawful on the ground that there is a civil petition filed by neighboring residents who do not constitute grounds for refusing the application for building permission, on the ground that the disposition rejecting the application is unlawful on the ground that there is a civil petition by neighboring residents who do not constitute grounds for refusing the application for building permission, in light of the current status of use of neighboring land or neighboring buildings under Article 8 (4) of the former Building Act (amended by Act No. 5895 of Feb. 8, 199) and Article 8 (6) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 16284 of Apr. 30, 199).

Article 8(4) of the former Building Act (amended by Act No. 5895 of Feb. 8, 199); Article 8(6)3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Building Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 16284 of Apr. 30, 199); Article 125-3 of the former Rules on the Standards for Urban Planning Facilities (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 257 of Aug. 18, 200) (see current Article 153)

Plaintiff

Ethical Market

Defendant 1 and 2 others (Attorney Jeong-chul et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2000Nu5519 delivered on November 9, 2000

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Intervenor joining the Defendant, and the remainder are assessed against the Defendant.

1. The court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its reasoning based on evidence, and determined that the land in its holding that the plaintiff intended to construct a funeral hall (hereinafter referred to as "land in this case") is classified as dry field, but it is difficult to view that the land in this case is worthy of conservation as good farmland since it has already been closed for three years, and that the land in this case is located at a place where growns are formed, and there are trees around the surrounding area, and thus, it is not difficult to see that the neighboring village or residential house is located. Even if a funeral hall is constructed on the land in a 350-meter straight line between ○ Middle School and its neighboring area, it is difficult to see that the building permit in this case would substantially obstruct the living environment of the residents or the educational environment of students, and that the building permit in this case would substantially increase the surrounding area of the building in this case and the surrounding area of the building in this case, and that the building permit in this case would be deemed to be unlawful in light of the construction permit in this case and other circumstances related to the construction permit in this case.

In light of the records and relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the above recognition and determination by the court below are just and acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence and incomplete deliberation or any error of law as to the environmental rights, educational environment rights, Article 125-3 of the Rules on Standards for Urban Planning Facilities, etc. under Article 35 (1) of the Constitution.

2. The court below held that even if the leased apartment of about 400 m (location omitted) and six m (6 m (6) on the land of this case were constructed and completed, it cannot be deemed that the land of this case is adjacent to the population-populated area under Article 125-3 of the Rules on the Standards for Urban Planning Facilities, even if it is anticipated to move in from October 200, the land of this case cannot be deemed to be adjacent to the population-populated area under Article 125-3 of the Rules on the Standards for Urban Planning Facilities. In light of the records and relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the above judgment of the court below is just and there is no error of law

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Ji-dam (Presiding Justice)