[1] Whether an act of removal can be denied solely on the ground that a building in a development restriction zone is not registered in the building ledger, etc. or that it did not go through the training procedure during the training period of an unauthorized building (negative)

[2] In order to permit the removal of a building within a development-restricted zone, whether the building to be constructed in a building within a development-restricted zone, in addition to the lawful requirements for the removal of a building (affirmative)

[3] Measures to be taken by an administrative agency on a petition that does not meet all lawful requirements

[1] Unless there are special circumstances, such as that a building already constructed before the designation of a development restriction zone goes against the relevant laws and regulations, the act of removal and construction within the development restriction zone cannot be denied solely on the ground that the building was not registered in the building ledger, etc., and the building did not go through training procedures for the training period of unauthorized buildings after the designation of a development restriction zone.

[2] In order to permit the removal of a building in a development restriction zone, a building to be removed must be subject to the removal permission, as well as a building constructed in a building to be removed in a removal restriction zone shall meet the requirements under the Building Act.

[3] The administrative agency may demand the supplementation of the requirements for a request that fails to meet the lawful requirements, and if the request is not complied with, the administrative agency may return the request on the ground of defects in the requirements.

[1] Article 21 of the former Urban Planning Act (amended by Act No. 6243 of Jan. 28, 200), Article 20 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Urban Planning Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15799 of May 19, 198), Article 7 (1) 3 (g) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Urban Planning Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 133 of May 19, 1998) / [2] Article 21 of the former Urban Planning Act (amended by Act No. 6243 of Jan. 28, 200), Article 3 of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones, Article 3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Urban Planning Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15799 of May 19, 198), Article 31 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Urban Planning Act (amended by Act No. 15579 of May 19, 197) /198

Plaintiff

Guang-si Market

Seoul High Court Decision 99Nu10065 delivered on December 23, 1999

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The judgment of the court below

According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the judgment of the first instance as cited by the court below, the court below acknowledged the following facts: the plaintiff expropriated the housing in this case within a development-restricted zone and filed an application for relocation permission under Article 7 (1) 3 (g) (i) of the Enforcement Rule of the Urban Planning Act (amended by Ordinance No. 133 of May 19, 198) to remove and cultivate other housing within a development-restricted zone; and the defendant demanded twice to supplement documents such as building ledgers verifying that the housing in this case is legitimate under the Building Act; the disposition in this case was rejected on the ground that the plaintiff did not comply with the above request; if the right of relocation is granted, it would be exceeded the purpose of designating the development-restricted zone to prevent the disorderly expansion of the city by preserving the natural environment surrounding the city, and thus, it did not go against the purpose of the establishment of the building in this case without permission to remove the housing within the development-restricted zone, and it did not go against the purpose of the establishment of the building in this case without permission to establish and implement the building in this case.

2. The judgment of this Court

A. Unless there are special circumstances, such as that a building already constructed before the designation of a development restriction zone conflicts with the relevant laws and regulations, the act of removal and reconstruction within the development restriction zone cannot be denied solely on the ground that the building was not registered in the building ledger, etc., and the building did not undergo training procedures for the training period of unauthorized buildings after the designation of a development restriction zone. The court below maintained the first instance judgment to the same purport, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

B. However, a permit for removal and reconstruction within a development-restricted zone should not only be a building subject to removal and reconstruction permission, but also a building constructed in a removal and reconstruction zone should meet the requirements under the Building Act. An administrative agency may demand supplementation of the requirements with respect to an application that does not meet all the requirements, and if the application is not complied with, it may be returned on the ground of defects in the requirements.

According to the records, the defendant alleged in the written reply submitted in the first instance court that the plaintiff's request for supplementation pursuant to relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Urban Planning Act, the plaintiff rejected the above request and rejected the above request (see, e.g., records 24-25). The plaintiff asserted that this case's house was not an illegal building excluded from the object of the building permit, and that there was no submission of the pertinent disposition or the order to supplement the relevant building up to the court below. Even though the plaintiff only asserted the legitimacy of the building subject to the building, the above written reply submitted by the defendant can be deemed as including the defendant's request for supplementation of the legitimate requirements of the building to be constructed in the building subject to the building subject to the building building, other than the legitimate requirements of the building subject to the building subject to the building building, the defendant ordered the plaintiff to supplement the building subject to the building subject to the building subject to the building due to the specific request for supplementation or supplementation, and the court below ordered the plaintiff to supplement the building subject to the building subject to the building's request to supplement or supplement of the building.

Nevertheless, there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations as to the requirements for permission for the act of removal and reduction, and the allegation contained in the grounds of appeal is with merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)