Effect of sale in violation of the Gu Urban Planning Act

According to the provisions of Article 48 of the former Urban Planning Act (Act No. 983), the State-owned or public land within the urban planning zone, such as the instant land, which is necessary for urban planning facilities, shall not be sold or transferred for any purpose other than urban planning with respect to such facilities. Thus, the sale of this land to the defendants for the purpose of farming and landscape is null and void.

Articles 48 and 2 of the former Urban Planning Act (Law No. 983, Jan. 20, 1962)

Supreme Court Decision 68Da2469 Decided March 31, 1969

Korea

Defendant 1 and two others

Defendant 2 Intervenor Nonparty

Daegu High Court Decision 78Na52 delivered on February 16, 1979

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

The defendants' grounds of appeal are examined.

The court below selected the evidence, and confirmed that this case's land is the original state property and the land is the forest development area designated as a harbor development area within the urban planning district in Samcheon-si, 1969 notice No. 12 of the Construction Part No. 12 of the Construction Part of the Construction Part. The court below's determination that the sale of this case's land to the defendants for the purpose of agricultural landscape by violating the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, erroneous determination of facts, incomplete deliberation, or omission of judgment, etc., is not erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles, since the court below's examination of the evidence by the record reveals that it is sufficiently pride in the above-mentioned facts. According to Article 48 of the former Urban Planning Act (Act No. 983) of the Urban Planning Act (Act No. 983), it shall not be sold or transferred for the purpose other than urban planning with respect to the land in this case's urban planning facility.

In sum, this paper argues that the land in this case is only within the simple quasi-industrial area under the former Urban Planning Act, but is not necessary for the harbor development facilities in the Si of Samcheon-si. Therefore, the lower court’s exclusive authority over the preparation of evidence and the fact-finding without any justifiable reason, or as an independent opinion on Article 48 of the former Urban Planning Act, cannot be adopted.

Therefore, this appeal is without merit and dismissed. The costs of the appeal are assessed against the Defendants who have lost them. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Han-jin (Presiding Justice)