(a) Whether or not a state-owned land necessary for harbor facilities in an urban planning area may be sold as farmland;

(b) Mutual relationship under Articles 17 and 48 of the former Urban Planning Act;

(a) Port facilities are land that falls under facilities under Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the former Urban Planning Act and that cannot be sold or transferred for any purpose other than that prescribed in the urban planning, unless it is a State-owned land within the urban planning zone;

B. Article 17 of the former Urban Planning Act does not provide grounds for the designation of a state-owned or co-owned land under Article 48 of the former Urban Planning Act with a mutually flexible relationship with the restriction on disposal of State-owned or co-owned land. Therefore, it is not possible to recognize that the State-owned or public land is a land necessary for harbor facilities on the ground

Article 2 subparag. 1, Article 17, and Article 48 of the former Urban Planning Act (Law No. 983)

Korea

Defendant 1 and three others

Daegu High Court Decision 75Na789 delivered on March 29, 1977

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

The defendants' grounds of appeal are examined.

With respect to No. 1:

In sum, the issue is that the lawsuit is withdrawn because both parties are absent on the date for the second pleading of the case No. 1,2,3, and 4 of the first instance trial, and the record is established, which states that the lawsuit shall be deemed withdrawn on the date for the second pleading of the case. However, even if the plaintiff performer was summoned on the date for the first pleading of December 11, 1974, the delivery of the first pleading of December 100 against the defendants was impossible because the address of each address is unknown, and the court ordered the plaintiff to correct the address of the defendants, but the plaintiff did not summon the defendant, etc. on the date for the second pleading of the case No. 10:00 of the second pleading of the same month. The defendant et al. submitted to the court for the second pleading of January 27, 1975 that the attorney-at-law was appointed on the date for the second pleading of the case, but the court did not lawfully summon the defendant 200 days after the date for the second pleading of the same month.

With respect to the second ground:

The purpose of the decision of the court below is to examine in detail the purport of the purport of the claim that the land specified in paragraph (1) was owned by the State located within the urban planning zone of Samcheon-si under subparagraph 12 of the Public Notice of Construction Part 12 of Jan. 9, 1969, and that it was sold as farmland to the co-defendants of the court below, the non-party, the defendant 2, and the defendant 4, at the registration date of the claim, shall be determined by the facts that there is no dispute between the parties, and if the land is included in the industrial area among the urban planning area of Samcheon-si City City, Samcheon-si, the head of Samcheon-si Tax Office, on the ground that the cancellation of each of the above sale on August 23, 1971, can be considered to be justified in

However, according to Article 48 (Article 82 of the former Urban Planning Act (Act No. 983, hereinafter "the former Urban Planning Act"), which was enforced before the current Urban Planning Act (Act No. 2291), the land required for the state-owned or public-owned facilities within the urban planning zone (land required for the redevelopment project under Article 2 (1) 1 (b) or (c) of the Urban Planning Act) shall not be sold or transferred for any purpose other than the urban planning. Thus, the harbor facilities fall under the facilities under Article 2 subparagraph 1 (b) of the former Urban Planning Act (Article 2 (1) 1 (b) of the Urban Planning Act) and on the other hand, the land is a state-owned land within the urban planning zone of Samcheon-si as identified above, which is necessary for the harbor facilities in Samcheon-si, which is so, and it is justified for the court below to accept that the land is to be sold or transferred for any purpose other than the purpose of the plaintiff's request for the return of the land from the urban planning plan.

The designation of the area under Article 17 of the former Urban Planning Act and Article 22, Article 24 and Article 17 of the former Urban Planning Act (the designation of the area under Article 18 of the Urban Planning Act) are to be made in order to restrict or prohibit the construction or other acts in the area or district when it is deemed necessary for the economic and efficient utilization and promotion of welfare of the land within each urban planning zone, and each designation is to be made in order to restrict or prohibit the construction or other acts in the area or district, and there is no ground that there is a mutual inevitable relation with the restriction on disposal of State-owned or public-owned land under Article 48 of the former Urban Planning Act (Article 82 of the Urban Planning Act). Thus, even if the land is located outside the area designated as the area as the industrial area, it cannot be said that there is an unlawful error in the judgment of the court below which seems to have recognized that the land is necessary for the harbor facilities at the time of the

Therefore, this case's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with the provisions of Articles 400, 395, and 384 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the burden of litigation costs.

Justices Min Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)