Whether Article 21 (1) and (2) of the Urban Planning Act on the designation of a development-restricted area is unconstitutional (negative)

Article 21(1) and (2) of the Urban Planning Act provides that a land owner in a development-restricted area shall be subject to many restrictions on the exercise of his/her property rights and be disadvantaged in comparison with other general land owners within the said limits. However, the above restrictions imposed only on "in order to prevent any disorderly expansion of cities and to preserve the natural environment surrounding cities in order to ensure a healthy living environment, or in order to restrict the development of a security city at the request of the Minister of National Defense" are reasonable restrictions appropriate for public welfare. Since the disadvantage of the land owner due to such restrictions is recognized to be the degree that he/she would not be aware of for the public welfare, the provisions of Article 21(1) and (2) of the Urban Planning Act do not violate Article 23(3) or Article 37(2) of the Constitution.

Articles 23(3) and 37(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea; Article 21(1) and (2) of the Urban Planning Act

Attorney Long-term et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee

The head of the Incheon Metropolitan City North Korea;

The request for adjudication on constitutionality is dismissed.

In accordance with Article 21(1) and (2) of the Urban Planning Act, it is clear that the owner of land in the development restriction zone is subject to many restrictions on the exercise of his/her property rights and is at a disadvantage compared to the general land owner within the said limits. However, the above restrictions imposed only on the case where it is deemed necessary to prevent any disorderly expansion of cities and to preserve the natural environment surrounding cities in order to ensure the healthy living environment for urban citizens or to restrict the development of a security city at the request of the Minister of National Defense (Article 21(1) of the Urban Planning Act) is a reasonable restriction appropriate for public welfare. Since the disadvantage of the land owner due to such restrictions is recognized to be the degree that he/she could not be at the risk of being at the expense of the public welfare, it cannot be said that the provisions of Article 21(1) and (2) of the Urban Planning Act are in violation of Article 23(3) of the Constitution or Article 37(2) of the Constitution.

Therefore, this case's motion is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)