Whether the term “existing house” under Article 13(1) [Attachment 1](c) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones refers to a legitimate building that does not conflict with the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes (affirmative)

Article 13(1) [Attached Table 1](3)(c) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones.

Plaintiff 1 and 3 others (Law Firm Sami General Law Office, Attorneys Shin Sung-chul et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

The head of Ansan-si (Attorney Lee Dong-gu, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2005Nu21684 delivered on June 21, 2006

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to Article 13(1) [Attachment Table 1](c) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19037 of Sep. 8, 2005), where the existing house is removed or unable to reside due to disaster due to the implementation of public works, the owner of the house concerned may construct a new house at a place meeting the location standards prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation as of the date of removal or disaster." This purpose is not to grant a certain pecuniary benefit for the removal of the existing house to a person who satisfies certain requirements under the Act and subordinate statutes (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do8600 of Feb. 22, 2007). Further, it does not conform to the provisions of Article 13(1) [Attachment Table 1] of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones, which provides that the existing house has been removed from the time of the implementation of public works or the construction of a new house in conflict with the existing Act and subordinate statutes, which does not violate the legislative purport and purport of the above provision.

In this regard, the court below held that the disposition of this case by the defendant, which rejected the plaintiffs' application for construction permission for the same reason, is legitimate, because the housing of this case was already a house which had already existed since the designation of a development restriction zone, but it was an unauthorized building that did not obtain any construction permission required by the law, and thus, it does not constitute an "existing house" as provided in the above sub-paragraph (c). There is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the requirements for removal of livestock in a development restriction

Therefore, all appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing parties. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Ill-sook (Presiding Justice)