(a) Where building permission has been granted in violation of the provisions on the building-to-land ratio, whether the administrative agency may revoke such permission at any time;

(b) The case reversing the judgment of the court below which held that the disposition of revocation of a license to grant a Paragraph (a) is a deviation of discretion, on the ground that there was an error of law regarding the public interest that would be obtained from such revocation and a party's disadvantage bridge

(a) The provision on the building-to-land ratio under the Building-to-land ratio is to regulate the use relationship of the land in question and its neighboring land and to secure appropriate use of the land in consideration of the size of the land and road conditions, etc., and if the building permit has been granted in violation of the provisions on such building-to-land ratio, administrative agencies may revoke it at any time, and no cancellation shall be allowed only if the disadvantage of the other party is greater than

(b) The case reversing the judgment of the court below that a disposition of revocation of a building permit made in violation of the provisions on the building-to-land ratio is a deviation of discretion, on the grounds that there was an error of law regarding the public interest to be obtained from such revocation and a party disadvantage bridge

(b)Article 47 of the Building Act; Article 78 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act; Article 27 of the Administrative Litigation Act;

ABS Co., Ltd

The head of Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 94Gu3768 delivered on August 30, 1994

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s revocation of the construction permit of this case, which became 64.7% of the building permit of this case on the ground that it exceeded 45% of the lawful building-to-land ratio at the time of permission, was made by mistake in the interpretation of public officials in charge, that the Plaintiff incurred design expenses of KRW 27,00,000 before the construction permit of this case, and that the Plaintiff was conducting preparatory work for the commencement of construction, such as receiving estimates from the construction company after the construction permit of this case, and that the construction permit of this case is revoked, the costs incurred in such preparatory work would be at a disadvantage that would lose utility once the construction site of this case was classified into non-business real estate, and that the Plaintiff’s disposal of the building site of this case, which was owned by the Plaintiff, did not include the costs paid by the Plaintiff from 190 to 193 as deductible expenses, thereby causing disadvantages to voluntary payment by adding the total corporate tax of KRW 59,809,17, and that the Plaintiff’s revocation of the construction permit of this case’s.

2. The provision on the building-to-land ratio under the Building-to-land ratio is to regulate the use relationship between the land in question and neighboring land and to secure the proper use of land in consideration of the size of the land and road conditions, etc. If the building permit has been granted in violation of the provisions on such building-to-land ratio, the administrative agency may revoke it at any time, and it shall not be revoked only if the disadvantage of the other party is greater than that of the public interest secured by the cancellation.

Since the construction permit of this case was already paid before the application for the construction permit of this case was filed, if the construction permit of this case was not issued, it cannot be said that it would be considered to be considered to revoke the construction permit of this case as illegal. The corporate tax also seems to have maintained the validity of the permit of this case or changed its burden depending on the cancellation of the construction permit of this case. Thus, it cannot be said that the determination of whether to revoke the construction permit of this case should be considered.

However, if the construction company prepares for the commencement, such as receiving estimates from the construction company due to the preparation for the commencement after obtaining the construction permit, such efforts and expenses will lose their utility due to the cancellation of the construction permit of this case. However, it cannot be said that the Plaintiff’s receipt of estimates from the construction company does not require any materials as to whether or not the Plaintiff has paid expenses to a certain extent. If the Plaintiff simply made efforts to prepare for the commencement of construction, then the Plaintiff would suffer disadvantages to the extent that such efforts would lose their utility, in light of the public interest needs to comply with the provisions of the law and regulations on the building-to-land ratio in granting the construction permit, even if considering the circumstances where the construction permit of this case was illegally made and the circumstances where the restriction on the building-to-land ratio was significantly mitigated after the cancellation of the construction permit of this case, it cannot be said that the above disadvantages that the Plaintiff would suffer more than the need for public interest.

After all, the judgment of the court below that the cancellation disposition of the building permit of this case exceeded the scope of discretionary authority is not erroneous in the misapprehension of the public interest to be gained due to the cancellation and the disadvantage bridge of the party that may be caused by the cancellation, and there is a reason to charge this error.

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 Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)