A period during which the reconstruction of a building for housing is allowed in a development-restricted area;

The purport of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Enforcement Decree of the Urban Planning Act, which permits the reconstruction of a building for housing in a development-restricted zone, is to protect the right to acquire the building lawfully from the owner of the building in the development-restricted zone, and the purport of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act which permits the reconstruction of a building destroyed by a disaster is to reduce the right to a new building permit procedure to restore the existing building even in a case where the existence, use, size, etc. of the destroyed building can be confirmed, and to seek the benefit of the previous owner, such reconstruction is interpreted to be limited to a period to the extent that the size or use of the existing building can be identified and verified.

Articles 21(1), 21(2), and 21(3) of the Urban Planning Act, Article 20(1)1(d) of the Enforcement Decree of the Urban Planning Act, Article 7(1)6(a) of the Enforcement Rule of the Urban Planning Act, Article 2(1)4 of the Enforcement Rule of the Building Act

Plaintiff

The head of North Korea of Busan Metropolitan City

Busan High Court Decision 92Gu5638 delivered on March 25, 1994

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. The court below held that the non-party 1, a father of the plaintiff's existing building, was unable to relocate the same building to ○○ Dong, Busan, for a long time on 1935 and that the non-party 1, a string house and a string roof house were constructed and resided in the same building and the 1string roof house and its affiliated building, and the non-party 1, who had been living in the above house with his family, was designated as a development-restricted zone pursuant to the Urban Planning Act of December 29, 1971, and the above area was not allowed for the plaintiff's new construction-related construction-related construction-related construction-related removal-related construction-related construction-related construction-related removal-related construction-related construction-related construction-related construction-related removal-related construction-related construction-related construction-related construction-related construction-related construction-related construction-related construction-related construction-related construction-related construction-related construction-related construction-related construction-related construction-related construction-related construction-related construction-related construction-related construction-related construction-related construction-related construction-related construction-related construction-related construction-related construction-related construction-related construction-related construction-related construction-related construction-related construction-

2. In addition, while the court below decided that the application for reconstruction of this case was unfair in light of the legal principles of invalidation or forfeiture, it is obvious that the legal interpretation of the court below on this application was added to family judgment, and as seen earlier, the court below's determination that the application for reconstruction of this case cannot be deemed to have satisfied the requirements, the ground of appeal as to the legal principles of invalidation or forfeiture cannot be deemed to have asserted an unlawful cause which has a influence on the result of the judgment below. There

3. 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 on the bench.

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)