The case holding that the land which is a natural green area in the urban planning shall fall under the land which might seriously damage the surrounding environment, scenic view, etc. due to the alteration of its form and quality.

The case reversing the decision of the court below that the rejection of the above disposition is unlawful on the ground that the land is a natural green area in urban planning and its use area is located within the area publicly notified by the head of local government not to permit the alteration of the form and quality of the existing building except for the extension, renovation, etc. of the existing building, and some buildings such as a golf practice range, etc. are located within the natural green area adjacent to the land in question, and its size is not large and all buildings are constructed before the above restriction of permission is publicly announced, and since most land except this is still constructed before the above restriction of permission is maintained as a green area of development, and it is highly likely to accelerate the environmental destruction if the land is developed, and in comparison with this situation, even if there is a flat (Na), it is difficult to say that the land is a land which might substantially harm the surrounding environment, morals, and aesthetic view due to the alteration of the form and quality.

Article 4 (1) 1 of the Urban Planning Act, Article 5-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Urban Planning Act, Article 4 (1) 1, 4 and 2 of the Regulations on Criteria, etc. for Permission, etc. for Change of Land Form and Quality of Land (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 517 of Nov. 19, 192)

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

Plaintiff (Attorney Park Jong-ho, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Overcheon Market (Attorney Lee Dong-ho, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 96Gu34995 delivered on August 22, 1997

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the above 10-year land was located on April 7, 194, the building located on the 194 side of the above 5-year land, and the building located on the 10-year side of the above 5-year village, and the land was located on the 10-year side of the above 5-year village 2000 square meters away from the above 5-year village 10-year village 2, and the land was located on the 5-year village 10-year village 100 square meters away from the above 6-year village 10-dong village 111-69,890 square meters away from the above 5-year village 2-year village 11-6 meters away from the above 5-year village 11-6 meters away from the above 5-year village 10-year village 2, and the land was located on the 9-year village 34 meters away from the above 5-year village.

However, even according to the decision of the court below, the land in this case is a natural green area in urban planning and is located within the area where the defendant did not permit the alteration of the form and quality in addition to the extension, renovation, etc. of the existing building, and according to the records, some buildings such as the original adjudication are located within the natural green area adjacent to the land in this case, but the above restriction of permission was constructed before the above restriction of permission was announced, and most land except this are still constructed before the above restriction of permission has been maintained in the undeveloped green area, and it is highly likely that the environmental destruction would be accelerated when developing the land in this case. In comparison with these circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the land in this case falls under the land where there is a concern that the surrounding environment, wind, scenery, etc. might be significantly damaged due to the alteration of the form and quality of the land even if there is little little trees in fact.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that the rejection disposition of this case was unlawful merely on the ground of its explanation is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to Article 4 (1) 1 of the Rules on Change of Form and Quality. Therefore, the part of the ground for

Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Seo Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)