[1] The subjects and effects of the deliberation on the construction plan by a local building committee to construct an advertising tower exceeding four meters in height on the rooftop of a building located within an aesthetic district

[2] Whether there is a legal interest in seeking revocation of the above permission disposition from a third party, who is not the direct counter party to the permission for displaying outdoor advertisements, and has received only the deliberation of the construction plan by a local building committee for the construction of an advertising tower exceeding four meters high in the fine view district (negative

[1] Article 72 of the former Building Act (amended by Act No. 5230 of Dec. 30, 196) provides that "part of this Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the construction of an advertising tower under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree." Article 118 (1) 3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Building Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 15096 of Jun. 29, 1996) provides that Article 45 (2) of the former Building Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the construction of an advertising tower, advertising board, or other similar structures with a height exceeding 4 meters of height. It does not apply mutatis mutandis to the entire provisions, but to the provisions on the restriction on the types and colors of buildings, and Article 69 (3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Building Act provides that "the construction of an advertising tower within aesthetic zones shall be deliberated by a local building committee with respect to the shapes of the buildings which are subject to the restriction on the construction of an advertising tower." In full view of the above provisions, it shall not go beyond the former Act No. 15197 meters of the Act.

[2] The reason why a person who intends to build an advertising tower exceeding 4 meters in height within an aesthetic district has undergone a deliberation of a building plan by a local building committee does not have a specific legal interest directly protected under the former Outdoor Advertisements, etc. Control Act (amended by Act No. 5454, Dec. 13, 1997) with respect to the construction of an advertising tower. Thus, even though a third party, who was not the party to the permission, was subjected to a deliberation of a building plan or a building within the scope of the horizontal distance between different signboards, a disposition of permission for displaying an outdoor advertisement for the installation of a rooftop signboard, even though the third party was subjected to a disposition of permission for the installation of a rooftop signboard, such disposition of permission does not have a legal interest in filing a lawsuit seeking the revocation of the permission.

[1] Articles 45(2) and 72 of the former Building Act (amended by Act No. 5230 of Dec. 30, 1996), Articles 69(3) and 118(1)3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Building Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15096 of Jun. 29, 1996), Article 2 subparag. 2 of the former Outdoor Advertisements, etc. Control Act (amended by Act No. 5454 of Dec. 13, 1997), Article 3 subparag. 5 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Outdoor Advertisements, etc. Control Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15271 of Feb. 6, 1997), Article 3 subparag. 2 of the former Building Act (amended by Act No. 5230 of Dec. 30, 196), Article 45(2) and 196(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Building Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1519697, Jun. 19, 297, 197, 196

[2] Supreme Court Decision 93Nu5017 delivered on October 8, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 3085), Supreme Court Decision 97Nu12566 delivered on December 7, 199 (Gong2000Sang, 195), Supreme Court Decision 97Nu1337 delivered on February 8, 200 (Gong200Sang, 616), Supreme Court Decision 98Du7923 delivered on April 25, 200 (Gong200Sang, 1321)

Seoul High Court Decision 200Na1448 delivered on August 1, 200

The head of Seo-gu Gwangju Metropolitan City

Defendant joining the Defendant (Attorney Noh Jeong-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Gwangju High Court Decision 96Gu2179 delivered on August 21, 1997

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 72 of the former Building Act (amended by Act No. 5230, Dec. 30, 1996; hereinafter referred to as the "former Building Act") provides that "part of this Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the construction of an advertising tower under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree." Article 118 (1) 3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Building Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 15096, Jun. 29, 1996; hereinafter referred to as the "former Enforcement Decree") provides that the restriction on the construction of advertising towers and other similar structures shall apply mutatis mutandis to advertisements of the same type, such as advertising tower, which are subject to the examination of the horizontal distance between the building's horizontal distance and the building's horizontal distance prior to the deliberation of the advertisement tower, and Article 45 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Building Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 15097, Apr. 1, 197) shall not apply mutatis mutandis to the above restriction on the construction of outdoor advertisements within the rooftop of the Act.

Therefore, the reason why a person who intends to build an advertising tower exceeding 4 meters in height within an aesthetic district is not sufficient to gain specific legal interests directly protected under the former Outdoor Advertisement, etc. Control Act with respect to the building of an advertising tower, and even if another person received permission for displaying an outdoor advertisement for the installation of a rooftop signboard from the building subject to the deliberation of the construction plan or from the building within the scope of restriction on the horizontal distance between rooftop signboards, such permission disposition does not constitute a violation of specific legal interests directly protected under the relevant Acts. Thus, a third person, who is not the other party to the construction plan, and is not the party to the construction plan, is not a legal interest to file a lawsuit seeking the revocation of such permission disposition.

In the above purport, the court below's decision dismissing the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case on the ground that there is no legal interest in seeking revocation of the disposition of permission for displaying outdoor advertisements, etc. against the defendant's intervenor as a third party who is not the direct counter party to the disposition of permission for displaying outdoor advertisements, etc. of this case against the defendant's intervenor, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the legal nature of the deliberation of construction plan under Article 69 (3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Building Act and standing to sue of third party who is not the direct counter party to the disposition of permission for displaying

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.

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)