A. Whether an administrative disposition is unlawful solely on the ground that he/she knew of the guidelines for administrative affairs inside the administrative agency

(b) Purport of the provisions of Article 7 (1) 3 (g) (i) of the Enforcement Rule of the Urban Planning Act and whether the person entitled to apply for the removal permit under Article 7 (1) 3 (g) (i) is limited to the building owner at the time of removal (affirmative);

A. If the administrative guidelines established within the administrative agency independently by the administration impose new restrictions on the general public beyond the provisions of superior laws and regulations, then it cannot be recognized as effective. However, if the administrative rules merely provide guidance to subordinate administrative agencies and provide a uniform interpretation standard of superior laws and regulations in order to ensure the uniform interpretation of laws and regulations, the administrative disposition is not unlawful solely on the ground that such interpretation standard had been different as long as it appears reasonable in the interpretation of superior laws and regulations.

B. According to the relevant provisions of the Urban Planning Act, construction of a building in violation of the purpose of the designation of the relevant zone cannot be implemented in a development restriction zone. However, construction of a building necessary for the public interest can be implemented with the permission of the competent authority only on the scale of the building and the structure provided for in Article 7(1)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Urban Planning Act. Among them, construction of a building necessary for the public interest can not be implemented with the permission of the competent authority to the extent that it does not interfere with the realization of the purpose of designating the development restriction zone. Among them, construction of a building in a development restriction zone does not necessarily mean that where a person who lives in the development restriction zone loses his living base due to the removal of the existing building due to the public interest project, etc., the person who continued to provide a living ground and set forth to the effect that the person would lose his living base due to the removal of the existing building due to the facilitation of the implementation of the public interest project, and thus, it does not necessarily mean that the person entitled to

(a) Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [general administrative disposition]. Article 21 of the Urban Planning Act, Article 20 of the Enforcement Decree of the Urban Planning Act, Article 7 (1) 3 (g) (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Urban Planning Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 85Nu942 delivered on March 10, 1987 (Gong1987,657) b. Supreme Court Decision 90Nu1878 delivered on February 12, 1991 (Gong1991,90)

[Judgment of the court below]

The head of Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 91Gu3682 delivered on July 9, 1991

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal (the grounds of appeal for additional appeal are submitted after the lapse of the period for submitting the grounds of appeal) are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the non-party 1 acquired the right to construct a building by obtaining a building permit within the neighboring site or neighboring village area pursuant to Article 7 (1) 3 (g) (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Urban Planning Act because the non-party 1 owned one house on the ground of Gangdong-gu Seoul ( Address 1 omitted) which is a development-restricted zone under the Urban Planning Act, and the non-party 1 acquired the right to construct a building by obtaining a building permit within the neighboring site or neighboring village area, which is a development-restricted zone under the provisions of Article 7 (1) 3 (g) (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Urban Planning Act. The court below determined that the non-party 1 applied for a building permit to the defendant, who is a development-restricted zone, based on the above transfer-restricted zone of Gangdong-gu Seoul ( Address 2 omitted), which is the owner of the building before the removal of the building, and that the defendant did not have the right to remove the building permit within the boundary of the scope of the building permit under the Act.

If the above administrative guidelines of the Minister of Construction and Transportation are administrative rules established independently by the administration and impose new restrictions on the people beyond the provisions of superior laws and regulations, such guidelines can not be recognized. However, if the administrative rules merely provide guidance to subordinate administrative agencies among the administrative rules and provide a uniform interpretation of laws and regulations, if they have the nature of the norm interpretation rules that provide the corresponding standards for the interpretation of superior Acts and subordinate statutes, they should not be deemed unlawful solely on the ground that they were different as long as they were reasonable in the interpretation of superior laws and regulations.

According to Article 21 (2) and (3) of the Urban Planning Act, Article 20 (1) 1 (a) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 7 (1) 3 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, a building cannot be constructed in a development restriction zone in violation of the purpose of the designation of the zone. Construction of a building necessary for public interest can be implemented with the permission of the competent authority only for the size of the building and structure provided for in Article 7 (1) 3 of the above Enforcement Rule. Among them, the above subparagraph 3 (g) Item (1) of the above Article does not interfere with the realization of the purpose of the designation of the development restriction zone, if a person living in the development restriction zone loses his base of livelihood due to the removal of the existing building due to public works, etc., and it does not mean that the person who acquired the above building should not be subject to the permission, and it does not necessarily mean that the person who acquired the building should have the same nature as the owner of the building at the time of removal.

Nevertheless, the lower court’s determination that the instant refusal disposition was unlawful on the grounds as indicated in its holding cannot be deemed to have affected the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the scope of acts permissible within development-restricted areas under the Urban Planning Act. The allegation pointing out

Therefore, the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)