[1] The legal nature of the administrative rules

[2] The legal nature of the management regulations for development restriction zones

[3] The case holding that a non-permission disposition is illegal on the application for a change in the form and quality of the pertinent land within the permitted scope under the related laws

[1] The so-called administrative rules, which are issued by a superior administrative agency to a subordinate administrative agency, are generally effective only within the administrative organization and do not have external binding force. However, in a case where the provisions of a statute specifically provide for the matters to be the contents of the statute in the form of administrative rules in which the delegated administrative agency grants the authority to determine the specific matters of the statute and does not specify the procedure or method of exercising the authority to the specific matters of the statute, such administrative rules, regulations are effective only within the administrative organization, and do not have external binding force, not only within the administrative organization, but also within the general effect of administrative rules which grant the authority to supplement the specific matters of the statute, but also within the general effect of administrative rules which do not have external binding power. Accordingly, the administrative agency has the function to supplement the contents of the statute in accordance with the legal regulations that grant the authority to supplement the specific matters of the statute

[2] The Management Regulations of Development Restriction Zones (amended by Ministry of Construction and Transportation Directive No. 126 of Nov. 11, 1995) merely stipulate the internal business rules of administrative agencies concerning the management of development restriction zones, in light of the content and nature of the regulations, etc., separate from the internal binding effect of administrative agencies on the management of development restriction zones, and there is no effect to externally bind the court or the general public. Thus, the above development restriction zone management regulations do not have a legitimate refusal of change of form and quality, etc., just because they comply with the standards stipulated in the above development restriction zone management regulations, and whether such measures are legitimate should be separately determined depending on the content

[3] The case holding that with respect to the pertinent case where the head of a local government does not make any specific assertion or admission with respect to the public interest necessity to limit the installation area of the pertinent gas station within 1,000 square meters, it is unlawful that the head of a local government made a non-permission disposition on the application for a change in the form and quality of the pertinent land within the scope prescribed by the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes only in accordance with the management regulations of the development restriction zone (amended by Ministry of Construction and Transportation Directive No.

[1] Article 95 of the Constitution / [2] Article 21 of the Urban Planning Act, Article 20 of the Enforcement Decree of the Urban Planning Act, Articles 7, 8 and 9 of the Enforcement Rule of the Urban Planning Act / [3] Article 21 of the Urban Planning Act, Article 20 of the Enforcement Decree of the Urban Planning Act, Articles 7, 8 and 9 of the Enforcement Rule of the Urban Planning Act, Article 1 of the

[1] Supreme Court Decision 86Nu484 delivered on September 29, 1987 (Gong1987, 1668) Supreme Court Decision 94Do2502 delivered on May 23, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 2302)

Plaintiff (Law Firm continental, Attorneys Ha-hee et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Ansan-si

Seoul High Court Decision 97Gu5413 delivered on October 30, 1997

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The so-called administrative rules, which are issued by a superior administrative agency to a subordinate administrative agency on the guidelines for the performance of duties or the standards for the interpretation and application of statutes, are generally effective only within the administrative organization and do not have external binding force. However, in cases where the provisions of statutes specifically provide for the matters to be the contents of the statutes in the form of administrative rules in which the delegated administrative agency grants the authority to determine the specific matters of the statutes to a specific administrative agency without specifying the procedures or methods for the exercise of such authority, such administrative rules, regulations, and regulations are effective only within the administrative organization, and do not have external binding force, not only within the administrative organization, but also within the general effect of administrative rules that grant the authority to supplement the specific matters of the statutes, and thus, they have the function to supplement the contents of the statutes by the validity of the regulations that grant the authority to supplement the specific matters of the statutes to the administrative agency, and thus, they shall have the effect of external binding order in combination with those of the statutes (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 86Nu484, Sept. 29, 1987; 94Do25).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that in this case where the management rules of development restriction zones (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 126 of Nov. 11, 1995) stipulate the internal management rules of administrative agencies concerning the management of development restriction zones, it is merely a provision of administrative agencies' internal management rules concerning the management of development restriction zones in light of its contents, nature, etc., and apart from externally binding effects on administrative agencies, it is not legitimate to make a provisional disposition of denial of change of form and quality, etc. on the ground that the above development restriction zone management regulations are not in conformity with the standards prescribed by the above development restriction zone management regulations, but it is not legitimate to make a separate determination on whether such disposition is legitimate or not, based on the contents and purport of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes and the necessity of public interest, etc., the defendant's application for permission to change the form and quality of the land in this case should be limited to 1,00 square meters of the area of the gas station in this case.

The grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.

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

Justices Seo Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)