2019231839 Revocation of a building permit revocation

Plaintiff

Attorney Kim Tae-sik, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Head of branch office in Pyeongtaek-si

Law Firm Domp et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 2018Nu52480 Decided December 20, 2018

23, 2020.7

The original judgment shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent that the grounds of appeal are supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Summary and key issues of the case

A. Reviewing the reasoning of the original judgment and the record, the following circumstances are revealed. (1) The Plaintiff is in accordance with the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”).

Around December 14, 2016, in order to construct a 7,45 square meters of total floor area of 3,457 square meters in Pyeongtaek-si ( Address 1 omitted), ( Address 2 omitted), 1,402 square meters in response to ( Address 3 omitted), 2,977 square meters in response to ( Address 4 omitted), 2,450 square meters in total (hereinafter “instant land”) 7,457 square meters in total, 10 square meters in total, 10,000 square meters in total (hereinafter “the instant land”) of 7,47,27.35 square meters in total (hereinafter “the instant housing shed”), the Defendant filed an application for construction permit under the Building Act with the Defendant (hereinafter “the instant housing shed”). At the same time, the Nonparty (the Plaintiff’s person who designed the housing shed at the request of the Plaintiff) for the construction permit under the Building Act and the instant building permit were not required to be written in the instant building permit or the instant building permit.

① The Plaintiff did not obtain permission for development activities under Article 56(1) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act for the construction of this private architect (hereinafter “instant ground for Disposition 1”).

② The construction of livestock pens in this case did not conduct a small-scale environmental management evaluation pursuant to Article 59 [Attachment 4] of the Enforcement Decree of the Environmental Impact Assessment Act (hereinafter referred to as the "grounds for the second disposition").

③ Of the sum of the instant land 11,284 square meters, 345 square meters is irrelevant to the instant livestock shed construction, and thus excluded from the building site area, the instant land was submitted to the purport that the said land would be divided into the instant land in the future, and that the said land would be divided into the instant land. However, such farmland division contravenes Article 22 of the Farmland Act, which prohibits the subdivision of farmland.

B. The key issue of the instant case is (1) whether the Defendant’s ground for revocation ex officio is recognized as the grounds for the first and second dispositions, and (2) whether the instant revocation disposition violates the legal principle on revocation ex officio of the beneficial administrative disposition even if the grounds for revocation are recognized.

2. Whether the grounds for disposition No. 1 are acknowledged (Ground of appeal No. 1)

(a) Building permission under the Building Act and permission for development activities under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (land form and quality alteration) may be permitted only when the owner has secured the relevant site lawfully;

In such a period, "security of a site" includes the fact that a project owner has to secure the ownership of and other rights to use the land for which he/she is to construct a building, including the fact that the relevant land has to have the legal nature permitted to construct a building under relevant Acts and subordinate statutes. In order to use a parcel of land differently from its land category, he/she shall obtain permission for development activities (land form and quality change) under Article 56 (1) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act in order to lawfully change the use of the relevant land. This also applies even if the actual status of the relevant land differs from the land category of the public register at any time, or construction works are not required to change the physical form of the relevant land, or even if it is not required to change the land category of the relevant land, first of all, after lawfully changing the use of the relevant land (the possibility of using the land legally permitted) through development activities, and then applying for land category change to the competent cadastral authority under Article 81 of the Act on the Establishment, Management, etc. of Spatial Data (see Supreme Court Decision 200Du3232, 28, 2009).

In order to construct a stable on the land which is a "land category", in addition to a building permit under the Building Act, development activities (land form and quality alteration) under the National Land Planning Act should be permitted as a procedure to legally change the use of the relevant land. In particular, in order to safely construct a large scale stable, and to prevent livestock excreta from emitting into the soil of a stable site and to properly dispose of livestock excreta in accordance with the Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta, it is necessary to pack concrete in a stable site (specific packaging does not correspond to "minor act subject to exemption from development activities" under Article 53 subparagraph 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the National Land Planning Act), more development activities (land form and quality alteration) are necessary to be performed in order to use farmland as a stable site, not to apply for a permit under the Land Planning and Utilization Act, which is a specific purpose and purpose of the National Land Planning Act (see the proviso to Article 2 of the Farmland Act), but it is not necessarily required to apply for a permit-related development activities (the purpose and effect of a permit under the National Land Planning Act).

If there is a high possibility that a building owner can secure a site in the near future even if he/she fails to fulfill the "security of a site" requirement, it cannot be deemed illegal to issue a building permit to the building owner under the Building Act with an implied transition system inasmuch as the building administrative agency is subject to an explicit condition that he/she should obtain a permit for development activities (such as changing the form and quality of land) under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act in the future or is naturally required.

However, if a building owner refuses to implement development activities (land form and quality change) under the National Land Planning Act after obtaining a building permit under the Building Act, or is likely to issue a permit for development activities (land form and quality change) under the National Land Planning Act with respect to the building site in question due to other changes in circumstances, it is necessary to recover the building permit already issued by the building administrative agency on the ground that it did not meet the "to secure the site that should have been equipped with the building plan of the building owner" requirements.

B. Although the construction of a building is subject to a building permit under the Building Act and a building permit for development activities (construction of a building) under the National Land Planning Act (Article 11(1) of the Building Act), at the same time, it is subject to a building permit under the National Land Planning Act (Article 56(1)1 of the National Land Planning Act). Since the building permit under the Building Act and the permission for development activities under the National Land Planning Act differ in the legislative purpose, criteria for the building permit and the permission for development activities under the National Land Planning Act respectively, two permits must be obtained in order for a building owner to construct a building. (2) However, Article 11(5)3 of the Building Act provides that the relevant person who intends to obtain a building permit under the National Land Planning Act through prior consultation with the relevant administrative agency to obtain the permission for development activities under the National Land Planning Act and Article 57(1) of the National Land Planning Act provides that the person who intends to obtain the permission for development activities should submit an application for the construction permission or the construction of infrastructure under the Building Act, among those who intend to obtain the permission for development activities.

The purport of the legal fiction of authorization and permission in the Building Act is to protect the rights and interests of the people by integrating the relevant windows to a construction administrative agency in relation to the legal fiction of authorization and permission, simplification of procedures, and reduction of expenses and hours, and not to exclude all examination of the requirements for authorization and permission under the relevant laws on legal fiction of authorization and permission (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Du14954, Jan. 20, 201). (3) Comprehensively taking into account the contents and structure of the above provisions, and the legislative intent of the above provisions, in order to construct a building, the building owner is not required to separately apply for construction permission under the Building Act and development acts (construction of a building) under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, but to ensure that two permissions are issued at the same time through the examination of the building permit under the Building Act by the building owner’s legal fiction. In other words, the building owner is required to submit the necessary data for the construction permit development authority’s prior consultation under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act.

Through this, whether a building plan of a building owner satisfies the criteria for permission for development activities under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act should be examined. Even if a building plan of a building owner satisfies the criteria for permission for development activities under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, construction of the building in question is not permitted under the legal order. Thus, when a building plan of a building owner fails to meet the criteria for permission for development activities under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, construction of the building should not be treated as not deemed permission under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (construction of a building) while issuing a building permit under the Building Act, and a building permit should be refused to issue a building permit under the Building Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2010Du14954, Jan. 20, 201). In a building permission procedure under the Building Act, where a building permit is issued under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act without examining whether the building permit satisfies the criteria for permission for development activities under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, the building permit is unlawful and thus revoked. In such case, an administrative agency should determine whether to grant a building permit again after prior consultation.

C. Determination as to the instant case

Examining the facts in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the following determination may be made. (1) In order for the instant stable to be constructed on the instant land by the “person”, development activities under the National Land Planning Act (land form and quality alteration) in addition to the construction permission under the Building Act. Nevertheless, the Defendant believed that the “building permit investigation and inspection report submitted by the Nonparty, who was requested by the Plaintiff,” was inaccurate, and issued the instant building permit by accepting the Plaintiff’s application for development activities under the National Land Planning Act in order to construct the instant stable in the instant land without properly examining whether the permission is necessary for the instant stable, and the Defendant issued the instant building permit by obtaining the Plaintiff’s application. (2) Meanwhile, the Defendant did not obtain the Plaintiff’s request for development permission under the National Land Planning Act (construction of a building) in the process of examining the Plaintiff’s application for the instant building permit, which did not meet the requirements for development permission under the National Land Planning Act, and issued the instant building permit under the National Land Planning Act by failing to meet the requirements for development permission under the National Land Planning Act.

3. Whether the grounds for disposition No. 2 are acknowledged (ground of appeal No. 2)

A. According to relevant regulations and legal principles (1) Articles 2 subparag. 3, 43(1), and 44(1) of the Environmental Impact Assessment Act, and Article 59 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act [Attachment 4] subparag. 1(c) of the same Act, the term “small Environmental Impact Assessment” means to prepare a plan for environmental conservation by investigating, forecasting, and assessing the feasibility of the location and the impact on the environment at the time of implementing a development project in an area requiring environmental conservation or in distress (development of a State) in a planned development area. In the case of “agricultural area pursuant to Article 6 subparag. 3 of the National Land Planning Act”, a development project the area of which is at least 7,50 square meters is subject to small environmental impact assessment, and a project operator who intends to implement the relevant development project must prepare and submit a small environmental impact assessment plan before obtaining approval, etc. of the relevant development project to the head of the approving agency. In such a case, “the area of a development project at bar” is reasonable to establish a plan for small environmental impact assessment.

B. According to the judgment on the instant case’s judgment (1) record, the Plaintiff applied for the instant building permit and submitted the construction plan and its attached documents to the purport that the Plaintiff is unrelated to the construction of the instant stable, and that the remainder is not related to the construction of the instant stable. However, on the portion of 345 square meters indicated as “the site excluded,” it is anticipated that livestock pens will install a house, such as accommodation, external vehicle parking space, rest area, etc. of livestock pens workers, and 135 square meters indicated as “the planned site for approval for use outside the intended purpose.”

(2) If so, ① 345m and ③ 135m of “the planned site for approval for use for non-purpose purposes” is not the site for the livestock shed itself, but the site for the facilities or access roads of the livestock shed of this case. In order for the plaintiff to construct and operate the livestock shed of this case, ② the permission for development activities under the National Land Planning Act, the permission for diversion of farmland under the Farmland Act, or the permission for temporary use of farmland for other purposes should be obtained. Therefore, the development project of this case which constructs the livestock shed of this case should be 7,937m and 45m and 135m in this case’s project area. Thus, the construction project of this case is 7,97m and 47m and 57m and 7m of square meters in square meters in this case’s project area, which is subject to the construction permit of this case, which is not subject to the construction permit of this case, should be deemed to be in violation of the construction permit of this case’s 7,500m of the construction permit of this case’s construction permit.

4. Whether the legal principle on ex officio revocation of the administrative disposition that is profit-making (ground of appeal No. 3) is violated

A. Where there is a defect in an administrative disposition, the disposition agency may revoke it by itself even without any separate legal basis. However, when the disposition agency revokes a beneficial administrative disposition, it may revoke it by comparing and comparing the important public interest needs to revoke it with the degree of infringement on the vested rights and legal stability to be suffered by the other party to the disposition due to its revocation, etc., and may revoke it with strong cases where the public interest needs to justify the disadvantage suffered by the other party to the disposition. If the defect in the beneficial administrative disposition is due to the act of filing an application by concealment of facts or by other unlawful means, it shall be deemed that the other party itself was aware that he/she illegally acquired the benefit from the administrative disposition, and even if the administrative agency did not consider it, it shall not constitute a deviation or abuse of discretionary power (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Du4669, May 25, 2006).

B. In full view of the following circumstances, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff did not suffer any disadvantage due to the instant disposition of revocation ex officio, while deeming that there was a need for significant public interest to justify the Plaintiff’s disadvantage, and that the instant disposition of revocation ex officio was deviating from discretionary authority. (1) In order to obtain the instant construction permit, there is no Plaintiff’s act of filing an application by either discarding or other unlawful means. (2) There is no circumstance contrary to the regulations under the Building Act, such as the floor area ratio and building-to-land ratio, etc., and it is possible to resolve the illegality of the instant construction permit rather than cancelling the instant construction permit itself. (3) The Plaintiff purchased the instant land by borrowing funds from financial institutions to operate the instant stable, and if the Plaintiff purchased the instant land within 0 meters of the instant construction permit, such as the Plaintiff’s ex officio revocation of the instant construction permit, the Plaintiff’s removal of the instant farmland within the scope of 00 meters of the instant farmland construction permit, which would result in the Plaintiff’s removal of the instant construction permit’s farmland within the scope of 20 meters of the instant construction permit.

C. However, examining the circumstances seen earlier and the following circumstances revealed by the record, it is difficult to accept the lower court’s aforementioned determination in light of the relevant legal principles. (1) The instant ex officio revocation disposition was not made on the ground that the Plaintiff’s construction plan did not meet the criteria for development activities under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, not on the ground that the Plaintiff’s construction plan did not meet the criteria for development activities under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, but on the ground that the process of issuing the instant building permit did not properly examine whether the criteria for development activities under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act have been met, or on

이에 관해서 는 원고가 다시 건축법상 건축허가를 신청하면서 국토계획법상 개발행위 허가 기준 충족 여부를 판단할 수 있는 자료와 소규모 환경영향평가서를 첨부하여 제출하면 그때 가서 피고가 심사·판단하여야 한다. ( 2 ) 행정 처분 은 그근거 법령이 개정된 경우에도 경과 규정에서 달리 정함이없는한 처분 당시 시행 되는 개정 법령과 그에서 정한 기준에 의하는 것이 원칙이고, 그 개정 법령 이 기존 의 사실 또는 법률관계를 적용대상으로 하면서 국민의 재산권과 관련 하여 종전 보다 불리한법률효과를 규정하고 있는 경우에도 그러한 사실 또는 법률관계가 개정 법률 이 시행 되기 이전에 이미 완성 또는 종결된 것이아니라면 이를 헌법상 금지되는 소급 입법 에 의한 재산권 침해라고 할 수 는 없으며, 그러한 개정 법률의 적용 과 관련 하여서는 개정 전 법령의 존속에 대한 국민의 신뢰가 개정 법령의 적용에 관한 공익 상의 요구 보다 더보호가치가 있다고 인정되는 경우에 그러한 국민 의 신뢰보호를 보호 하기 위하여 그 적용이 제한될 수 있는 여지가 있을 따름이다(대법원 2000.3. 10. 선고 97 누 13818 판결 등 참조). ( 3 ) 피고 는 건축사소외인이 제출한 '건축허가조사 및 검사조서'의 부정확한 기재 를 그대로 믿고 , 이 사건 토지에서 이 사건 축사를 건축하기위하여 국토계획법상 개발행위 ( 토지 형질 변경 ) 허가가 필요한지 여부나 원고의 건축계획 이 개발행위허가기준을 충족 하였는지 여부 를 제대로 검토하지 않은 채 원고의 신청을 그대로 받아들여 이 사건 건축 허가 를 발급 하였다. 즉, 이 사건 건축허가는 피고의 착오로 발급된 것이다. 건축 행정청 의 착오 에 대하여 건축주에게 책임 이 있는지 여부는 건축주 본인은 물론이고 그 대리인 , 피용인 등 관계자 모두를 기준으로 판단하여야 한다(대법원 2016.7.27.선고 2016 두 36079 판결등 참조). 건축사 소외인은 원고의 의뢰에 따라 이 사건 축사를 설계한 건축사 로서 원고의 이익을 위하여 부정확한 내용으로 조서를 작성하여 제출한 것으로 볼 수 있고 , 이에 대해서는 원고에게도 책임 이 있다고 보아야 한다(건축법 제27조 제 1 항 에 의하면 건축행정청은 건축허가 관련 현장조사·검사·확인업무를 건축사 에게 대행 하게 할 수있으나, 피고가 건축사 소외인에게 이 사건 건축허가 관련 현장조사 · 검사 · 확인 업무 를 대행하도록 한 것이 아니라, 건축사 소외인이 사실상의 관행 으로서 미리 조서 를 작성하여 제출한 것에 불과하다. 설령 건축사 소외인이 피고를 대행하여 위 조서 를 작성한 것이라 하더라도, 건축설계 의뢰인의 이익을 위하여 부정확 한 내용 으로 조서 를 작성하여 제출한 이상 원고의 책임을 부정할 수 는 없다). ( 4 ) 원고 는 이 사건 축사를 건축하는 개발사업을 하려면 환경영향평가법상 소규모 환경 영향 평가 를 실시하여야 한다. 그런데도 원고가 이 사건 건축허가를 신청하면서 ① 축사 자체 의 부지 와② 부지 제외지, ③ 진입도로 부지가 별개인 것처럼 인위적으로 구분 하고 , 특히 축사자체의 부지면적을 7,457㎡로 정함으로써 농림지역에서 소규모 환경 영향 평가 대상 사업의 규모기준인 7,500m 에 미달하는 것처럼 건축계획서와 그 첨부 서류 를 작성 하여 제출한 것은 이 사건 축사를 건축하는 개발사업이 소규모 환경영향평가 대상 이 아닌 것처럼 보이게 하려는 의도가 있었다고 인정할 수 있다. ( 5 ) 피고 가 만연 히원고의 건축계획서와 그 첨부서류를 그대로 믿은 데 에 과실이 있다고 하더라도 , 피고의 착오는 원고가 유발한 것이거나 원고에게도 책임이 있으므로, 이 사건 건축 허가 의존속에 대한원고의 신뢰는 보호가치가 없다. ( 6 ) 원 심판결 이유에 의하면, 원고는 2016. 11.9. 이 사건 토지를 매수하여 2016. 12. 13. 소유권 이전 등기를 마친 후, 같은 날 금융기관에 채권최고액 7억 2천만 원 의 근저당권 을 설정해 준사실을 알 수 있다. 그러나 원고는 2016.12. 14.경 건축법상건축 허가 를 신청 하여 2017.1. 12. 이 사건 건축허가를 발급받았다. 원고가 이 사건 토지를 매수 하기 전에 건축법 제10조에서 정한 '건축 관련 입지와 규모의 사전결정'을 신청 하여 관계 법령 상 이 사건 축사의 건축이 허용될 수 있는지에 관하여 피고의 사전결정 을 받고 그것을 신뢰 하여 이 사건 토지를 매수한 것이 아니다. 원고는 이 사건 토지를 되팔아 매수 자금 을 회수하는 것이 가능하며, 원고가 건축공사를 착수하거나 완공한 것도 아니므 로 , 이 사건 건축허가가 취소될 경우에 원고에게 발생하는 불이익 또는 회수할 수 없는 금전적 손해가 크다고 보기도 어렵다. ( 7 ) 국토 계획 법상개발행위허가는 허가기준 및 금지요건이 불확정개념으로 규정 된 부분 이 많아 그 요건에 해당하는지 여부는 행정청의 재량판단 의 영역에 속한다. 그러므로 그에 대한 사법심사는행정청 의 공익판단에 관한 재량 의 여지를 감안하여 원칙적으로 재량권 의 일탈·남용이 있는지 여부만을 대상으로 하고, 사실오인과 비례·평등 원칙 위반 여부 등 이 그 판단 기준이 된다. 특히 환경의 훼손이나 오염을 발생시킬 우려 가 있는 개발 행위에 대한 행정청 의 허가와 관련하여 재량권의 일탈·남용 여부를 심사할 때에는 해당 지역 주민들의 토지이용실태와 생활환경 등 구체적 지역 상황과 상반 되는 이익 을 가진이해관계자들 사이의 권익 균형 및 환경권의 보호에 관한 각종 규정의 입법 취지 등 을종합하여 신중하게 판단하여야 한다. '환경오염 발생 우려'와 같이 장래 에 발생할 불확실한 상황과 파급효과에 대한 예측이 필요한 요건에 관한 행정청의 재량 적 판단 은그 내용이 현저히 합리성을 결여하였다거나 상반되는 이익이나 가치를 대비해 볼 때형평이나 비례 의 원칙에 뚜렷하게 배치되는 등 의 사정이 없는 한 폭넓게 존중 하여야 한다(대법원2017.3. 15.선고 2016두55490 판결 등 참조).

D. Nevertheless, solely based on the foregoing circumstances, the lower court determined that the instant ex officio revocation disposition was an unlawful disposition that deviates from discretion against the principle of limitation on revocation ex officio of the instant beneficial administrative disposition.

In such a judgment of the court below, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the limitation of ex officio revocation and the deviation and abuse of discretionary power, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

5. 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 Ansan-chul

Justices Park Sang-ok

Justices Noh Jeong-hee

Justices Kim Jae-hwan of the District Court