A. Criteria for determining whether the land form and quality alteration, etc. (No. 4288 of Apr. 17, 1982) is “area which is likely to seriously harm the surrounding environment, wind, scenery, etc.” as stipulated in Article 4(1) of the Regulations on the Criteria for Permission for Change, etc. of Land Quality and Quality

B. Whether to consider a plan to construct apartment buildings on the ground after changing the form and quality in determining whether the application for change of form and quality is proper (affirmative)

A. In determining whether a certain act of changing the form and quality of land is “an area which is likely to seriously harm the surrounding environment, wind, scenery, etc.” as stipulated in Article 4(1) of the Regulations on the Criteria for Permission for Change, etc. of Land Quality and Quality (No. 428 of April 17, 1982), a comprehensive determination shall be made with regard to not only the environmental, wind, and scenery of the land in question due to changes in the form and quality, but also the impact on the surrounding environment, wind, landscape, etc. of the land adjacent to the land in question, further whether there is a need to preserve the original form and quality of the land in question

B. In determining whether the application for change of form and quality is proper, it is merely an independent view that only takes into account the impact of landscape, etc. caused by the change of form and quality itself, and that the virtual plan to construct apartment after the change of form and quality should not be considered.

Article 4(1) of the Urban Planning Act, Article 5-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Urban Planning Act, Article 4(1) of the Regulations on Criteria, etc. for Permission for Change, etc. of Land Quality and Quality (No. 428 of April 17, 198

[Plaintiff-Appellant] 11803 decided Jun. 27, 1989 (Gong1989,188)

Attorney Ha-nam et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant

[Defendant-Appellee] Kim Jin-jin, Counsel for defendant-appellee

Seoul High Court Decision 89Gu8332 delivered on January 24, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 4 (1) of the Urban Planning Act and Article 4 (1) of the Regulations on the Criteria, etc. for Permission for Change, etc. of Form and Quality of Land (the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 428 of Apr. 17, 1982) which was enacted pursuant to Article 5-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that the head of a Si/Gun shall not grant permission under the provisions of Article 4 (1) of the Act as an area where the surrounding environment, wind, landscape, etc. are likely to be significantly damaged due to the implementation of the relevant project (Article 4 (1) of the Act), which has historical, cultural, and local value and needs to be preserved in its original form (Article 3). In light of the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court duly recognized the facts as indicated in its reasoning based on the adopted evidence, and determined that the land in this case is part such as the mental symbol of the strong citizens, which is historical, cultural, deep, and highly damaged the overall form and quality of the land in this case, and thus it is highly likely that it will be justified.

Examining the reasoning reasoning of the judgment of the court below in comparison with the records, the fact finding of the court below is justified in its determination of whether the act of changing the form and quality of the land in this case is likely to seriously damage the surrounding environment, climate, and scenery, and whether the act of changing the form and quality of the land in this case's determination of whether the act of changing the form and quality of the land in this case has a possibility of serious damage to the surrounding environment, scenic view, etc. as well as the environmental, scenic view of the surrounding land in this case's form and quality, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the interpretation or application of the relevant provisions of the Urban Planning Act, such as the theory of lawsuit, in relation to the land's original preservation of the surrounding environment

In addition, in determining the propriety of the application for change of form and quality, only considering the impact of landscape by changing the form and quality itself and constructing apartment buildings on the ground after changing the form and quality of land is only a virtual plan that may arise after changing the form and quality, and thus, the theory that such circumstances should not be considered in determining whether to grant permission is only an independent opinion. All arguments are groundless.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the 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 Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Justice) Lee Chang-soo Kim Jong-won