(a) Legal nature of the guidelines for handling affairs concerning permission for changing the form and quality of land;

(b) Criteria for determining a case subject to permission for no construction in an urban planning zone pursuant to Article 5-2 of Enforcement Decree of the Urban Planning Act;

C. Whether a claim can be made as a ground for disposition, which is not identical to that of the initial disposition, in an appeal litigation

A. The Seoul Special Metropolitan City Guidelines for Permission for Change, etc. of Land Quality and Quality (amended by Seoul Special Metropolitan City Rules No. 563, Jul. 1, 1992) separately prescribes whether permission is subject to regulation only for certain cases, in addition to the provisions of the Regulations on Permission for Change, etc. of Land Quality and Quality, which are almost the same as that of the Regulations on Permission for Change, etc. of Land Quality and Quality. In light of its content and nature, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Rules only provide for the prohibition of permission for change, etc. of land quality and quality. Therefore, it cannot be a legitimate disposition as a matter of course

B. According to the provisions of Article 5-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Urban Planning Act, the cases subject to the non-permission of construction within the urban planning zone are not enough enough to interfere with the reasonable use or urban planning project of the land in question abstractly, and it should be regarded as subject to nonpermission only when it does not conform to the standards set by the Regulations on the Standards, etc. for

C. In an appeal seeking the revocation of an administrative disposition, it is not allowed to claim as a ground for disposition on the ground that the disposition agency can add or modify a new ground for disposition only to the extent recognized as identical in the grounds for the initial disposition and basic factual relations, from the perspective of the substantial rule of law and the protection of trust in the people who are the other party to the administrative disposition.

(a)Article 4(1) of the Urban Planning Act; Article 5-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act; Article 4(1)(c) of the Regulations on Criteria, etc. for Permission for Change, etc. of Land Quality and Quality; Article 27 of the Administrative Litigation Act ;

A. Supreme Court Decision 93Nu1315 delivered on January 14, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 735). Supreme Court Decision 92Nu8026 delivered on September 8, 1992 (Gong1992, 290) (Gong1992, 290). Supreme Court Decision 88Nu9299 delivered on December 8, 1989 (Gong1990, 270), and Supreme Court Decision 91Nu3895 delivered on February 14, 1992 (Gong192, 1046).

Attorney Dog Construction Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Attorney Park Jong-sik, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 93Gu27934 delivered on June 17, 1994

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

With respect to the first and second points

Article 4 (1) 1 of the Urban Planning Act provides that no change in the form and quality of land may be done without permission from the head of Si/Gun. Article 5-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that when granting permission under the provisions of Article 4 (1) of the same Act, the head of Si/Gun may interfere with the rational utilization of the land concerned or the urban planning project, which is not in conformity with the standards as determined by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation. According to Article 4 (1) 1 of the Regulations on the Standards, etc. for Permission for Change, etc. of Form and Quality of Land (amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 517 of Nov. 19, 192) which is a green belt area, the term "area which is likely to seriously damage the surrounding environment, wind, scenic view, etc. due to the execution of the project concerned

Meanwhile, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Guidelines for Affairs of Permission for Change, etc. of Land Quality and Quality (amended by Seoul Special Metropolitan City Rule No. 563, Jul. 1, 1992) separately provides for whether permission is subject to regulation only for a certain period of time, in addition to the provisions of the above Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation as to the prohibition of permission for change of land form and quality. Since the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Rules are only an internal administrative agency's internal administrative affairs rules which have no effect as an laws and regulations, their contents and nature and thus they cannot be deemed legitimate disposition. Whether such disposition is legitimate or not should be separately determined in accordance with the relevant laws and regulations and purport (see Supreme Court Decision 93Nu1315, Jan. 14, 1994; 9Nu15, Jan. 14, 1994). It is insufficient to say that it might interfere with the rational use of the relevant land or urban planning projects, and specifically, it shall be deemed non-permission only in cases where it fails to meet the standards prescribed by the Rules on Permission for Change, etc. of Land Quality and Quality and Quality (see Supreme Court Decision 2028.

In the same purport, the return disposition of this case is based on Article 5 (4) of the Rules of Seoul Special Metropolitan City, which provides that the permission for change of form and quality should not be granted with respect to "land which is likely to seriously damage the surrounding environment, wind, landscape, etc. due to the implementation of the project in question in light of the topographical conditions, etc." However, the above provision changed "a green belt area" from among the contents of Article 4 (1) 1 of the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation to "in light of the topographical conditions, etc.," and expanded the scope of permission more unreasonably than the upper law. Since the land in this case is a residential area in the urban planning and its specific use area is exclusive use area, and it does not fall under the scope of prohibition of permission under Article 4 (1) 1 of the above Rules, the decision of the court below that the return disposition of this case is unlawful because it unfairly limits the use of the land for the plaintiff's purpose in violation of the above Rules, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles

As long as the above recognition judgment of the court below is deemed justifiable, in addition, even though the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles, such as the theory of novels, in the judgment of the court below that the disposition of return of this case was illegal in violation of Article 4 (2) of the above Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation, this does not affect the conclusion of the judgment, and further, it is not necessary to review whether the land in this case is a land that is likely to seriously harm the surrounding environment, wind, and scenic view due to the execution of the pertinent project, and therefore, it is not necessary to review the

On the third ground for appeal

With respect to an appeal seeking the cancellation of an administrative disposition, from the perspective of the substantial rule of law and the protection of trust in the people who are the other party to the administrative disposition, the agency can add or change a new reason for disposition to the extent recognized as identical in basic facts and basic facts (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Nu3659, Aug. 18, 1992).

In the same purport, the court below's argument that the rejection disposition of this case is legitimate under the provisions of Article 4 (1) 3 and (4) of the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation ("Article 4 (3) of the same Act") and Article 20 of the same Ordinance, even though it does not follow Article 5 (4) of the above Seoul Metropolitan Government's Rules, is just and just, since the above grounds for rejection disposition of this case can not be deemed to be a ground that is identical to the grounds for rejection disposition of this case and the basic facts, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding legal principles as to the scope of deliberation as to the illegality of administrative disposition in an appeal litigation, such as the theory of lawsuit.

The issue is merely to criticize the judgment of the court below in different opinions, and there is no evidence to see that the defendant specified only the main reason in return of the Plaintiff’s application for change of land form and quality. Therefore, the argument based on this premise is without merit.

All arguments are without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the 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 Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)