Whether public notice of restricted areas subject to permission under Article 4(2) of the Regulations on Standards for Permission for Change, etc. of Land Quality and Quality is a requirement for determining whether to permit change of land form and quality (negative)

Article 4(2) of the Regulations on the Standards for Permission for Change, etc. of Land Quality and Quality provides that "the head of a Si/Gun shall publicly notify the location, area, grounds for restriction, and other necessary matters of the area where permission is restricted under the provisions of paragraph (1) of this Article, in the official bulletin issued by the relevant local government." However, in full view of the provisions of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the land is located in an area where there is no reason provided for in Article 4(1) of the above Rules, and thus, it does not require a conditional change of form and quality despite the existence of such reason, and it shall be deemed that a change of form and quality can be permitted only when meeting the requirements prescribed in the above

Article 4 of the Urban Planning Act, Article 5-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Urban Planning Act, Article 4 of the Regulations on Criteria for Permission for Change, etc. of Land

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Construction Co., Ltd.

Head of the Geum-gu Busan Metropolitan Government

Busan High Court Decision 95Gu9518 delivered on September 25, 1996

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

On the first ground for appeal

In light of the records, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its reasoning based on macroscopic evidence, and found the location and shape of the land in this case, the width or structure of access roads leading to the land in this case, the purpose of the Plaintiff’s changing the form and quality of the land in this case, and the scale of the alteration of form and quality thereof, etc., the land in this case constitutes a case where there is a possibility of impeding the rational use of the land in this case or the urban planning project under Article 5-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Urban Planning Act, and the land in this case constitutes an area where it is necessary to maintain the original form and quality of the land in this case and its surrounding environment for the public purpose under Article 4(1)3 of the Rules on the Criteria, etc. for Permission, etc. for Change of Land Form and Quality

On the second ground for appeal

In addition, Article 4(2) of the Regulations on the Criteria for Permission for Change, etc. of Land Form and Quality provides that "the head of a Si/Gun shall publish the location, area, grounds for restriction, and other necessary matters of the area where permission is restricted under the provisions of paragraph (1) of this Article, in the official bulletin issued by the relevant local government." However, in full view of the provisions of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the land is located in an area where there is no reason for public announcement as provided in Article 4(1) of the above Rules, and it is not necessary to permit a change of form and quality despite the existence of such reason, it is not necessary to permit a change of form and quality, and it shall be deemed that a change of form and quality can be permitted only when the requirements prescribed in the above rules are satisfied. Such a public announcement shall not be deemed a requirement for determining whether to permit change of land form and quality. It is a party member (see Supreme Court Decision 94Nu5298, Mar

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)