Whether the judgment of "whether it is likely to interfere with the rational use of the land or the urban planning project" in the permission for changing the form and quality of land under the former Urban Planning Act belongs to the discretion of the administrative agency (affirmative), and whether the criteria for dealing with the permission for changing the form and quality of land under Article 634 of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Rules No. 634 ( May 31, 1997), which prescribes the prohibition of all permission for changing the form and quality of land only on the grounds that the development is reserved under

Article 4 (1) 1 of the former Urban Planning Act (wholly amended by Act No. 6243 of Jan. 28, 200), Article 5-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 16891 of Jul. 1, 200), Article 4 of the former Rules on the Criteria for Permission for Change, etc. of Form and Quality of Land (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the Enforcement Rule of the Urban Planning Act of Jul. 4, 2000), the form and text of Article 4 of the former Rules on the Criteria for Permission for Change, etc. of Form and Quality of Land (repealed by Act No. 245 of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation of Jul. 4, 200) shall be granted discretion to administrative agencies on the determination of whether there is a possibility of hindering the rational use of the land for which permission was applied for change of form and quality or urban planning project under the Urban Planning Act, which is a general rule for internal affairs of the administrative agencies, and thus, it is not reasonable to restrict the development of the above regional basic urban planning project.

Article 4(1)1 of the former Urban Planning Act (amended by Act No. 6243 of Jan. 28, 200), Article 5-2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Urban Planning Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 16891 of Jul. 1, 200), Articles 1, 4, and 20 of the former Rules on the Criteria, etc. for Permission for Change, etc. of Land Quality and Quality of Land (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the Enforcement Rule of the Urban Planning Act, No. 245 of Jul. 4, 2000), Article 27 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 634 of the Seoul Metropolitan Government Rules (amended by Act No. 631 of May 31, 1997) of the Guidelines for Permission for Change, etc. of Land Quality and Quality, etc.

Supreme Court Decision 98Du8759 delivered on September 8, 1998 (Gong1998Ha, 2877) Supreme Court Decision 98Du17845 delivered on February 23, 1999 (Gong1999Sang, 572) Supreme Court Decision 98Da53134 delivered on May 25, 199 (Gong199Ha, 1244)

[Defendant-Appellant]

The head of Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 99Nu2149 delivered on July 8, 1999

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

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below, the court below acknowledged on December 23, 1997 that the plaintiff filed an application for permission for changing the form and quality of the land to newly construct a logistics warehouse with respect to the land of 223 square meters in Songpa-gu Seoul ( Address 1 omitted), 181 square meters in ( Address 2 omitted), 1,477 square meters in (hereinafter referred to as "land of this case") on the ground that the plaintiff's act of changing the form and quality of the land is prohibited, but the land of this case is located in the residential area and the residential area of which development is reserved in accordance with the basic urban planning of Seoul Metropolitan City, and the land of this case is located in the residential area and the land of this case and the land of this case shall not be deemed to be unlawful due to the change of the purpose of Article 5 (1) 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the Urban Planning Act concerning the permission of changing the form and quality of the land (hereinafter referred to as "the guidelines for handling affairs"), and the land of this case shall not be justified.

In full view of the forms and language of Article 4(1)1 of the former Urban Planning Act, Article 5-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 4 of the Rule of the same Act, whether the permission for changing the form and quality of the land is likely to interfere with the reasonable use of the land applied for permission or the urban planning project under the same Urban Planning Act shall be granted discretion to the administrative agency. However, Article 5(1)7 of the Guidelines for Handling Administrative Affairs, which is the administrative agency's internal administrative affairs, does not allow permission for an act of changing the form and quality of the "area for which development is reserved under the basic urban planning of Seoul Special Metropolitan City," which is a large-scale development land within a green belt, regardless of whether there is a "fluort about the rational use of the land or the urban planning project, which is the cause of non-permission under Article 5-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act", the criteria for such permission shall be determined uniformly

In light of the records and relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, it is reasonable to conclude that the judgment of the court of first instance, as cited by the court below, did not constitute a case where permission for alteration of form and quality cannot be granted because the land in this case is likely to hinder its rational utilization or urban planning projects. There is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles on the alteration of form and quality of land, the provisions of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Urban Planning Act, or the limitation on the exercise of discretionary authority, or by misapprehending the legal nature of the guidelines for handling affairs, or by violating the rules of evidence, or failing to exhaust all necessary

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Ji-dam (Presiding Justice)