208Guhap 11021 Revocation of Disposition of Non-permission for Building Permit

Dogsung (School Foundation)

Seoul

Representative Director 000

[Defendant-Appellant] Gyeong-gu et al.

Attorney 000,000

Dok-si

Litigation performers 000, 000

April 1, 2009

April 29, 2009

1. The Defendant’s provisional disposition of denial of construction against the Plaintiff on November 008 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The order is as set forth in the text.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 2, 2004, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with A to purchase shares of 767/1546 shares of the same 00 square meters and 767/1546 shares, among the land of 00 - 000 - 000 - 000 - 000 - 00 - 00 - 00 - 00 - 00 - 00 - 00 - 1546 shares, etc. for the purpose of building educational research and welfare facilities by the Defendant on February 00, 204.

B. On December 0, 2006, the Plaintiff applied for a building permit to the Defendant in order to construct a Gu building attached to a university with the size of the second and third floors underground on each of the above lands, but withdrawn the said application on the ground that co-owners’ consent to use the land in the instant road site was not obtained, and again applied for a building permit to the Defendant on February 0, 2007. However, on March 00 of the same year, the Plaintiff was also subject to a disposition of non-permission on the ground that he did not obtain the consent to use the land in the instant road site on the ground that he did not obtain the consent to use the land by the public.

C. Meanwhile, on July 00, 2007, △△△△△ announced the following restrictions on permission for development activities pursuant to Article 63 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (amended by Act No. 8852 of February 29, 2008; hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), as the Ministry of Construction and Transportation Notice No. 2007 - 294 (hereinafter referred to as the "Public Notice of this case") on July 0, 200, pursuant to Article 63 of the same Act, each of the above lands was included in the area where permission for development activities is restricted as the surrounding area of the housing site development area of △△△△.

【Public Notice】

1. Restricted areas;

Masung-si, Do-dong, Do-dong, Do-dong, and Dong-dong, Do-dong, Do-dong, Do-ri, Do-ri, Do-ri, and Do-ri.

100, 000, 000m

2. Grounds for restrictions:

An act of dumping real estate and an act of poor development for the area prearranged for housing site development and surrounding areas Dok2

for the change of the urban management plan;

- Alteration of a specific use area, specific use zone or specific use zone at the time of the decision of the urban management plan;

It is anticipated that the criteria for permission for development activities will be significantly changed accordingly.

3. An act subject to restriction;

- New construction or extension of a building (including alteration of use) or installation of a structure;

- changing the form and quality of land (other than changing the form and quality of land for farming) and gathering soil and rocks;

4. Restriction period.

- 3 years from the date of publication or until the date of determination of an urban management plan.

* Until the date of designation and public notice of planned housing development areas *

5. Matters excluded from the objects of restrictions.

- Construction activities in land, the form and quality of which is completed or in progress with permission for development activities

Construction activities within the scope of the purpose of use at the time of obtaining permission for development activities (hereinafter omitted)

D. After the plaintiff made a partition of co-owned property on the road site of this case, the plaintiff newly requested a building permit around November 2008 to build the above university-affiliated research institute on the above university-affiliated land on the above Do-dong 000 - 000 - 6 000 m and 6 m and the land which was shared as co-owned in the road site of this case (hereinafter referred to as "each of the land of this case"), and the defendant rendered a new disposition of this case on November 00, 208 on each of the land of this case on the ground that "the land of this case is subject to the permission of development acts (permission of development acts) under Article 63 of the Act and Article 60 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act and the permission of development acts under Article 51 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act (construction of buildings)."

[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 1-1, 2, Evidence No. 2-1 through 4, 6 through 11, Evidence No. 3-1, 2, and Evidence No. 4

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case is unlawful for the following reasons.

(1) Article 63 (1) 3 of the Act provides that permission for development activities may be restricted to the areas deemed especially necessary under the urban management plan, which are the areas for which the basic urban planning or urban planning is formulated and are deemed to be especially necessary under the urban management plan. Accordingly, the instant public notice related to each of the instant lands is null and void because it exceeds the scope of delegation under the above provision, and thus, the instant public notice is unlawful.

(2) According to the instant public notice, construction activities in the land, the form and quality of which have been completed with permission for development activities, which are excluded from objects of restriction. The instant land becomes a general residential site site after obtaining permission for changing the form and quality of a forest and the instant application for construction permission is for the establishment of an educational research institute, and is not against the grounds for restriction on the instant high city, and thus, such construction activities should be deemed to constitute matters excluded from the subject of restriction of the said public notice.

(3) The Plaintiff believed to newly build a university-affiliated research institute on each of the instant land and purchased the instant land on each of the instant land, and subsequently was unable to perform a construction act due to the restriction on the development permission pursuant to the instant public notice while continuously applying for the construction permission. As such, the Plaintiff’s trust that would be capable of conducting a construction act on each of the instant land should be protected.

B. The defendant's assertion

(1) Doggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg

(2) Since the instant building act deviates from the purpose of use permitted for changing the form and quality of a forest at the time of obtaining permission for changing the form and quality of a forest, it does not constitute the subject of restrictions on the instant notice.

(3) Even if there are such grounds as alleged by the Plaintiff, the instant disposition, which rejected the instant building permit pursuant to the instant public notice, cannot be deemed to go against the principle of trust protection.

3. Related Acts and subordinate statutes: To be stated in the Appendix.

4. Determination

First, we examine whether the notice of this case is invalid or not.

Article 63(1)3 of the Act provides that "an area where a basic urban planning or an urban management plan is formulated as one of the areas where permission for development activities may be restricted by the Minister of Construction and Transportation, the Mayor/Do Governor, the head of a Si/Gun, or the head of a Gun, and where the relevant basic urban planning or an urban management plan is determined, an area where a change is anticipated in the specific use area, use district or specific use zone, and accordingly, the criteria for permission for development activities is expected to change substantially accordingly." Thus, in order for △△ △ Do governor to publicly notify the restricted area where permission for development activities is restricted pursuant to the above provision

However, comprehensively taking account of the evidence mentioned above and evidence Nos. 6-1, 2, and 7, Gap evidence Nos. 8-1 through 3, and the fact-finding results with respect to the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs of this court, the public notice of this case is promoting the alteration of urban management planning about the surrounding areas along with the above planned area to prevent speculative activities before it is designated as a planned area for housing site development. However, there is no data to regard that there was any alteration of urban management planning regarding the above surrounding areas in Doggggg or defendant at the time, and there is no need to establish and publicly announce the basic urban planning of this case as well as 20 years after the alteration of the basic urban planning of this case. The public notice of this case can not be deemed to have been made within 20 years after the formation of the basic urban planning of this case as well as 20 years after the alteration of the basic urban planning of this case.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the disposition of this case is unlawful as it is based on the notice of this case without validity, and it is without need to examine the remaining issues. Thus, the original claim of this case seeking its revocation is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges subordinate to the presiding judge;

Judges Seo-dae et al.

Judges Immination