(a) The discretionary scope of building permission granted by a person holding the building permission;

(b) If the status of a building located in a restricted zone is different from that of the building ledger and the building management ledger, measures to be taken by the building permission holder against the application for an extension or reconstruction of the building;

(a)The construction permit holder, as a matter of course, should grant a construction permit under the provisions of the Building Act and the Urban Planning Act so long as the application is not in compliance with any restrictions provided for in the relevant laws and regulations, so that the application cannot be rejected without any legal basis, and in the event that the application is in compliance with legal requirements as a result of the examination, it should be permitted unless there are special circumstances. Notwithstanding the necessity of public interest, permission to a person meeting the requirements shall not be refused for reasons other than those provided for in the

(b)Where an application for a permit to extend or rebuild a building within a development-restricted zone is filed and the present condition of the building is different from that of the building ledger and the building management ledger, the competent authority shall investigate the present state and public records of the building in question in light of the purpose of designation of the development-restricted zone and the purport of the laws and regulations stipulating the preparation and management of the building management ledger, etc., and shall determine whether to permit the extension or reconstruction, examining whether the contents of the application for the building permit are inconsistent with the provisions of the relevant laws and regulations, and shall not return

A.B. Article 5 of the former Building Act (amended by Act No. 4381 of May 31, 1991), Article 5 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Building Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1365 of May 30, 1992), Article 5(b) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Building Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13655 of May 30, 1992). Article 21 of the Urban Planning Act, Article 20 of the Enforcement Decree of the Urban Planning Act, Article 7 of the Enforcement Rule of the Urban

A. Supreme Court Decision 88Nu767 delivered on June 27, 1989 (Gong1989,1181) 91Nu1766 delivered on June 9, 1992 (Gong192,2157) 92Nu12865 delivered on November 24, 1992 (Gong193,278)

[Defendant-Appellant] Hand Co., Ltd., Counsel for defendant-appellant-appellant

Hanam City Law Firm Kim Tae-Gyeong, Counsel for defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 91Gu8441 delivered on January 21, 1992

The judgment below is reversed.

The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the defendant's disposition rejecting the application for permission for extension/renovation of the building of this case was legitimate on the ground that the use and size of the existing building and the status of the existing building and the indication of the above public record are different in terms of the building management ledger and the building register, and that the actual status and purpose are not different in accordance with Article 21 of the Urban Planning Act, Article 20 of the Enforcement Decree, and Article 7 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, it is unnecessary for the defendant to determine whether to grant permission for extension/renovation of the building of this case in the development restriction zone.

2. A building permit holder shall grant a building permit under the provisions of the Building Act and the Urban Planning Act as a matter of course to the extent that the application does not comply with any restriction provided for in the relevant laws and regulations, so long as the application is not in compliance with the provisions of the same Act, it shall not be refused without any legal basis, and if the application is in compliance with the legal requirements as a result of the examination, it shall be permitted unless there are special circumstances. Notwithstanding the necessity of public interest, permission to a person meeting the requirements shall not be refused for reasons other than the grounds for restriction provided for in the relevant laws and regulations (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Nu7767, Jun. 27, 1989; 91Nu1766

However, according to Article 5 of the Building Act (wholly amended by Act No. 4381, May 31, 1991; hereinafter the same), Article 5 of the same Enforcement Decree, Article 2 of the same Enforcement Decree, and Article 2 of the same Enforcement Rule, a building permit shall be obtained from the head of Si/Gun with respect to the construction of a building exceeding a certain size in an urban planning zone, etc., as prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation, and a person who intends to obtain a building permit shall submit an application for the construction permit to the head of Si/Gun, along with the relevant documents prescribed in Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree, as prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation. If the head of Si/Gun deems it necessary for confirmation of facts, he/she may separately submit documents and books within the scope prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation. According to Article 21 of the Urban Planning Act, Article 20 of the same Enforcement Decree, Article 20 of the same Enforcement Decree, Article 7 of the same Enforcement Rule, and Article 5 (5).3).

However, there is no legal ground that the return of the application for permission for extension or reconstruction of the building subject to extension can be made because the current status of the building subject to extension or reconstruction and the contents of the public book are different. However, according to the inquiry of the construction division as of August 1, 1985 (No. 88 of the record as of August 1, 1985, if the building management ledger is different from the current status, it is necessary to correct the building management ledger in advance, but it cannot be a legitimate legal ground because it has no external binding force on the people.

Therefore, in cases where an application for a permit for extension or reconstruction of a building located in a development restriction zone is filed and the current status of the building is different from each entry in the building ledger and the building management ledger, the defendant, the competent authority, shall investigate the current status and public records of the building in question and whether the application for a permit for extension or reconstruction is inconsistent with the provisions of related Acts and subordinate statutes, and shall determine whether to grant a permit for extension or reconstruction, and shall not return the application for the building permit on the ground that each entry in the above public record is inconsistent with the public record or current status.

Nevertheless, the lower court’s determination that the instant disposition was lawful by the Defendant who rejected the above building permit application is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the building permit in a development-restricted zone, and the grounds for appeal assigning this point are

3. We reverse the judgment of the court below without examining the remainder of the grounds of appeal and remand the case to the Seoul High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.