Whether or not a warehouse on land located in a development restriction zone may be changed to a religious facility.

It is not allowed to newly construct or install religious facilities on land located within development-restricted areas: Provided, That it is not allowed to change the use of existing factories, houses, etc. to religious facilities exceptionally by the permission of the head of Si/Gun, or to change the use of warehouses allowed to be newly constructed under the provisions of Article 7 (1) 1 (g) of the Enforcement Decree of the Urban Planning Act to religious facilities prohibited from newly constructing or installing.

Article 21 of the Urban Planning Act, Article 20 of the Enforcement Decree of the Urban Planning Act, Article 7 (1) 1 (g) of the Enforcement Rule of the Urban Planning Act

Seogwons

The head of Busan Metropolitan City Office

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The defendant's refusal to grant permission to change the use to a religious facility on December 1, 1983, which is about 195-3854 as to the plaintiff on November 29, 1983, among the buildings listed in the annexed sheet (C) of the annexed sheet of the annexed sheet of No. 455-3854 on November 29, 1983, shall be revoked.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

On November 29, 1983, the plaintiff filed an application with the defendant for permission to change the purpose of use to a religious facility pursuant to Article 21(3) of the Urban Planning Act as to the portion of the warehouse indicated in the annexed sheet (C) 14 square meters in total among the buildings owned by the plaintiff on the site designated by the Minister of Construction and Transportation, which are the land in the annexed sheet (hereinafter referred to as the "ware" in this case), and Article 20(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act and Article 7(1)6(c)2 and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and the defendant rejected the plaintiff's application for permission to change the purpose of use to the religious facility on December 1, 1982.

The plaintiff's attorney purchased land and buildings on the annexed list to the non-party 1968, and the land and buildings on the annexed list to the non-party 1 were used for residential purposes; (b) the non-party 2's construction of new residential facilities can be used for residential purposes; and (c) the non-party 1's construction of new residential facilities or new residential facilities' new residential facilities' new residential facilities' use of new residential facilities' new residential facilities' new residential facilities' new residential facilities' new residential facilities' new residential facilities use approval for religious facilities' new residential facilities' new residential facilities' new residential facilities' new residential facilities use approval for the non-party 2's new residential facilities' new residential facilities' new residential facilities' new residential facilities use approval for the non-party 1's new residential facilities' new residential facilities' new residential facilities' new residential facilities use approval is not allowed for the non-party 4's new residential facilities' new residential facilities' new residential facilities' new residential facilities' new residential facilities' new use approval purposes are not allowed. Thus, according to the provisions of Article 20 (1)1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Urban Planning Act.

Therefore, the rejection of the Defendant’s permission to change the purpose of use to a religious facility on the instant warehouse is legitimate, and the Plaintiff’s claim of this case seeking revocation is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the losing Plaintiff’s expense.

Judge Seo-dae (Presiding Judge)