(a) The case holding that in case where one construction permit has been granted on the site on two parcels, revocation of the whole construction permit shall not constitute a deviation or abuse of discretionary power, on the grounds that a change of land category and a conversion of registration for one parcel of land was made unlawfully;

B. Whether a change of land category and registration conversion naturally become a ground for registration without the procedure and application pursuant to the intellectual related laws and regulations in a case where the forest actually changes the form and quality or the existence of a building on the forest is verified (negative

(a) The case holding that, in case where one construction permit has been granted on the site on two lots, it shall be indivisible, and thus, the entire construction permit was revoked on the ground that the land category change and registration conversion of one lot of land were made illegally, and that it does not constitute a deviation or abuse of discretionary power, on the ground that it was unlawful.

B. According to the cadastral laws and regulations on land category change and registration conversion, in order to make a land category change or registration conversion, an application for land category change or registration conversion shall be made, attaching all relevant documents as stipulated in the above laws and regulations, and even if the forest land actually changes the form and quality, or it is proved that there was a past building on the forest land, the land category change and registration conversion cannot be naturally made without the above procedure and application.

(a) Article 42 of the Building Act, Article 27 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Articles 16 and 20 of the Cadastral Act, Articles 16, 19 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Articles 19 and 21 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act;

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 2 others

The head of Gwanak-gu

Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu10959 delivered on December 13, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the evidence that the plaintiff's land category change and registration conversion in violation of the intellectual laws and regulations, such as making a surveying technician a false status surveying as if the land exists in the forest and field, in collusion with the plaintiff and the non-party who is a public official belonging to the defendant, to make a surveying technician a false status surveying as if the land were located in the forest and field, in violation of the cadastral laws and regulations as stated in its reasoning. In light of the records, the above fact-finding of the court below is acceptable, and there are no errors in the misapprehension of facts against the rules of evidence, such as the theory of fact-finding, and there is no reason to conclude that there is no errors in the misapprehension of facts against the rules of evidence, such as the theory of litigation, in light of the records.

2. On the second ground for appeal

According to the construction permit letter (No. 3) of this case, the main purpose of the construction is the vehicle-related facility (automobile store), neighborhood living facilities, the 3th floor space above 3,642 square meters, and the building permit for the building of reinforced concrete of the underground 3rd floors, and the change of land category and registration conversion as the above ( Address 1 omitted) site were legitimate, but the above change of land category and registration conversion were unlawful in violation of the intellectual law. As such, since the building permit was indivisible in case one building permit on the site on two lots of land, it cannot be said that the change of land category and registration conversion on one lot of land among two lots of lots of lots of lots of lots of lots of land was made due to unlawful abuse of discretionary power or abuse of discretionary power.

The decision of the court below to the same purport is justified and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the limitation of discretion of administrative disposition such as the theory of lawsuit.

3. On the third ground for appeal

The plaintiff's ground was already used as a ground for the collection of earth and rocks from the past and around 1971, since the form and quality of land has been completely changed, the land category is to be changed under the Cadastral Act. In addition, even if the existing building existing on the ground above ( Address 4 omitted) was removed at the time of the land category change, if it is proved that there was a building completed under the Cadastral Act, it should be a matter of course if the land category change is made. Therefore, the above site is a legitimate change of land category and registration conversion, and thus the cancellation of the building permit in this case was unlawful. However, the court below did not decide on the ground that the above ground was legitimate because the above ground for the change of land category was not affected by the law on land category change and registration conversion (Article 20 of the Cadastral Act, Article 19 of the Enforcement Decree of the Cadastral Act, Article 21 of the same Act, Article 16 of the Enforcement Decree of the Cadastral Act, Article 19 of the same Act, and Article 19 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, etc.)

4. 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 Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)