The case holding that the change of land form and quality in Article 4 (1) 2 of the Regulations on the nature of permission for change of land form and quality, criteria for permission for change of land form and quality

In full view of Article 4(1) of the Urban Planning Act, Article 5-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 4(1)2 of the Regulations on the Criteria for Permission for Change, etc. of Land Quality and Quality, etc., and Article 1 of the Urban Planning Act, the basic nature of permission for change of land form and quality is to recover the original freedom by cancelling general prohibition, and in the absence of any grounds for non-permission prescribed by illegal provisions such as the Urban Planning Act, it is a binding discretion to accept such permission. Therefore, it is not only a reservation of all construction activities due to a new market development project under the Urban Planning Act, but it is also a district subject to housing site development project for housing construction of 2,00,000 which is one of the government-major policy projects, allowing the development by changing the form and quality of land in the course of examination may hinder urban development and cause property damage to the land owner. Thus, such reason constitutes a ground for non-permission of change of land form and quality as provided in Article 4(1)2 of the Regulations on

Article 4 of the Urban Planning Act, Article 5-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 4 of the Regulations on Criteria for Permission for Change of Land Form and Quality.

Red Round

The head of Yangcheon-gu

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The defendant's refusal to grant permission to change the form and quality of land against the plaintiff on February 14, 1989 shall be revoked. The defendant's refusal to grant permission to change the form and quality of land to the plaintiff on November 1, 647, Yangcheon-gu, Seoul

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant.

1. Gap evidence Nos. 1 (Application for Permission for Change of Land and Quality), Gap evidence Nos. 2 (Appeal of Report Processing), Gap evidence Nos. 3-2 (No. 4), Gap evidence No. 5 (Real Estate Register), Gap evidence Nos. 6-1 (Examination of Facts of Urban Planning), Eul evidence Nos. 2 (Examination of Application for Permission for Change of Land and Quality), Eul evidence Nos. 3 (Examination of Application for Permission for Change of Land and Quality), Eul evidence Nos. 4 (Investigation of Permission for Change of Land and Quality), Eul evidence Nos. 4 (Written Answer of Change of Land, etc.), and Eul evidence Nos. 647-dong, Yangcheon-gu, Seoul. 11,041 square meters (hereinafter referred to as "the land of this case"), and it is reasonable to accept the plaintiff's application for change of land form and quality to the land development plan of this case for the purpose of new construction and new development of the above land by the Urban Planning Act, and it is not reasonable to recognize that the plaintiff's application for change of the above land development plan to 100.14.

2. The defendant asserts that the rejection disposition of this case is legitimate on the above grounds. Accordingly, the plaintiff's permission for changing the form and quality of land is a binding discretion and must accept the application without any grounds for non-permission stipulated in the laws and regulations such as the Urban Planning Act, and the plaintiff's permission for changing the form and quality of land in this case can construct dangerous storage and disposal facilities such as oil stations in the natural green area pursuant to Article 32 (1) of the Building Act and Article 66 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and it is reasonable to permit the alteration of the form and quality of land to newly construct a gas station building on the land of this case, which is a natural green area, in light of the rationalization of the spatial conditions of urban community, the convenience and safety of citizens, the enhancement of urban functions, the protection of residential environment, health and sanitation, and the safety prevention of pollution.

Therefore, according to Article 4 (1) of the Urban Planning Act and other relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, after the decision of urban planning is announced publicly, the change of the form and quality of land, cutting of bamboo and trees, gathering soil and rocks, new construction, reconstruction, heavy construction of buildings or other structures, installation or piling-up of things which are not easy to move, etc. can not be performed within the urban planning zone. According to Article 5-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the head of Si/Gun is likely to interfere with the rational use of the land or the urban planning project, which is not in conformity with the standards as prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation. Article 4 (1) of the Regulations on the Standards for Permission of Change, etc. of Land Quality and Quality, which is the Ministry of Construction and Transportation enacted by delegation of the above Enforcement Decree, shall not be permitted, and the head of Si (including the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor and Metropolitan Cities; hereinafter the same shall apply) or Gun shall not, in light of the purpose of Article 4 (1) of the Urban Planning Act, seek permission to improve the land form and quality of the above urban Planning Act.

The above evidence No. 2, Gap evidence No. 3-2, Eul evidence No. 6-2, Eul evidence No. 2, Eul evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 2, Eul evidence No. 2, Eul evidence No. 5 (field drawing) and the testimony of the above witness No. 196,00 square meters including the land in this case are scattered in the undeveloped area south of the Dong-dong City, and there is no possibility of changing the form and quality of the land as well as changing the form and quality of the above land No. 2 to secure the construction environment of the above building No. 1,000, it is reasonable for the Seoul Special Metropolitan City to regulate the construction of the above lot No. 2, as well as the new construction of the above land No. 1,000, which has no dispute over the establishment of the building No. 1,000, and there is no possibility of changing the land form and quality of the above land to the new residential development area No. 20,000.

3. Therefore, the defendant's rejection disposition of this case is legitimate, and the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed without merit, and the costs of this case are assessed against the losing plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jong-sung (Presiding Justice)