(a) In cases where the owner of a building demolished due to the implementation of a public project purchases a house created as part of relocation measures in addition to compensation for the adjudication of expropriation, whether he/she loses the right to obtain a building permit on another neighboring site located within a development-restricted zone for the relocation of the building (negative

(b) The case holding that there was an error of failing to examine the purpose of designating a development restriction zone in determining whether a disposition rejecting an application for a building permit to remove a building demolished due to the implementation of public works is legitimate;

A. If the owner of a building demolished due to the implementation of public works intends to construct the building in order to remove the building on the site located in the neighboring development restriction zone, he/she shall automatically lose the above right solely on the fact that he/she was sold another land which is the housing site created as part of the relocation measures by the project implementer pursuant to Article 8 of the Special Act on the Compensation for Loss of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 445 of Feb. 3, 1989), if it is apparent that the building falls under the building under Article 7 (1) 3 (g) (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Urban Planning Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 445 of Feb. 3, 1989) and it is not deemed that the building owner has the right

(b) The case holding that there was an error of failing to examine the purpose of designating a development restriction zone in determining whether a disposition rejecting an application for a building permit to remove a building demolished due to the implementation of public works is legitimate;

(a)Article 21 of the Urban Planning Act, Article 20(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Urban Planning Act, Article 7(1)3(g)(i) of Enforcement Rule of the Urban Planning Act, Article 7(1)3(a) of the Enforcement Rule of the Urban Planning

Attorney Kim Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

The head of Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan City Office (the head of Gangseo Office)

Busan High Court Decision 88Gu742 delivered on December 1, 1989

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the plaintiff owned the land and the above ground buildings on the 4th land at the original city, but all of the above land and the above ground buildings were expropriated due to the construction of the access road to the Nakdong River at the Han River basin, and the Industrial Base Development Corporation, which is a business entity, deposited the compensation for expropriation decision. The Busan Metropolitan City and the Busan Metropolitan City, as part of the relocation measures for the people who have lost their base of living due to the implementation of public projects pursuant to Article 8 of the Compensation for Public Loss and Compensation for Loss of Land, the housing site was built and sold in lots to the removal of the building site at the 3213-14 site at the original city on March 31, 1987, and the plaintiff was able to apply for the removal of the building site at the 100-meter adjacent to the above construction construction site at the 15-meter adjacent to the construction permit at the 100-meter construction site at the 14th construction site.

However, as determined by the court below, if the plaintiff seeks to construct the building in this case in order to remove and build the building which was removed due to the execution of the public works in the original city in the original city and which was owned by the plaintiff on the original city in order to remove and build the building to be removed on the site of 115-3 site in the neighboring city in the original city, the building to be constructed by the plaintiff shall be deemed to fall under the building under Article 7 (1) 3 (g) (i) of the Enforcement Rule of the Urban Planning Act (amended by the Ordinance No. 445 of Feb. 3, 1989) and it is obvious that the building falls under the building in this case and there is no obstacle to the purpose of designating the development restriction zone (refer to Article 20 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Urban Planning Act). Thus, the plaintiff shall not automatically lose the plaintiff's right, on the sole basis of the fact that the plaintiff received another land from the Busan Metropolitan City under Article 8 of the Enforcement Rule of the Urban Planning Act.

The judgment of the court below that the plaintiff cannot obtain a building permit of the building of this case is erroneous in the rules of evidence and the misunderstanding of legal principles as to the construction of buildings within development-restricted areas without any evidence. Therefore, the argument is justified.

2. After recognizing the facts of the judgment, the court below held that the sale of the above housing site is merely a measure for removal of the housing site, and even if it is possible to move to a development-restricted zone following the removal of the part of the store, it is not possible to construct the housing, but it is not allowed to do so if it receives the above application for permission, which is most houses, such as the above recognition, the whole 115-3 years prior to 115-3 years prior to 694 square meters, and it is obvious that the purpose of the designation of the development-restricted zone is against the purpose of the designation of the development-restricted zone. Thus, the defendant's rejection of the application for permission by the plaintiff on the ground that the construction in the development-restricted

However, according to Article 21 (1) of the Urban Planning Act, in order to prevent any disorderly expansion of cities and to preserve the natural environment surrounding cities in order to ensure the healthy living environment for urban citizens, or to restrict the development of security cities at the request of the Minister of National Defense, the Minister of Construction and Transportation may determine the designation of an area where urban development is restricted by urban planning when it is deemed necessary to restrict the development of security cities. According to Article 20 (1) 1(a) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, construction of a building necessary for public interest, which is recognized as not impeding the purpose of designating a development restriction zone, can be permitted. Thus, the court below should review whether the construction of the original building that the Plaintiff intends to construct is deemed not impeding the purpose of designating a development restriction zone by constructing the original building, and determine whether such construction obstructs the purpose of designating the development restriction zone.

The decision of the court below without examining what is the purpose of the designation of the development restriction zone is is in violation of the law of incomplete hearing and therefore, it is reasonable to discuss this issue.

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

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)