[1] Criteria for determining whether change of form and quality in an urban planning zone under Article 5-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Urban Planning Act is prohibited

[2] Detailed criteria for determination of urban planning and determination of individual effective scope (=cadastral published drawings)

[1] According to the provisions of Article 5-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Urban Planning Act, in the case of non-permission with respect to the application for changing the form and quality of the land within the urban planning zone, there is a lack of room for abstractly impeding the rational utilization of the pertinent land or the urban planning project, and in detail, it is not in conformity with the standards stipulated by the Regulations on the Criteria, etc.

[2] The effect of the determination of urban planning has arisen due to the public notice of the determination of urban planning, and it does not arise due to the public notice of the approval of the cadastral public notice drawing. However, in general, the drawings of the public notice of urban planning alone do not specify the specific scope or the individual land, so the concrete and individual scope of the determination of urban planning is determined by the cadastral public notice drawing, and therefore, it should be determined on the basis of the cadastral notice that the determination of whether certain land goes against the road under the Urban Planning Act.

[1] Article 4 (1) 1 of the Urban Planning Act, Article 5-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Urban Planning Act, Article 4 (1) 3 of the Regulations on Criteria, etc. for Permission, etc. for Changing Land Form and Quality of Land / [2] Articles 12 and 13 of the Urban Planning Act, Article 9 of the Enforcement Decree of the Urban Planning Act, Article 4 (1) 3 of the Regulations on Criteria,

[1] Supreme Court Decision 92Nu8026 delivered on September 8, 1992 (Gong1992, 2900), Supreme Court Decision 94Nu9368 delivered on September 23, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 287), Supreme Court Decision 96Nu18380 delivered on September 12, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 3145) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 92Nu5607 delivered on February 9, 1993 (Gong193Sang, 94Nu3483 delivered on July 29, 1994 (Gong194, 2242)

Plaintiff (Attorney Yoon-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The head of Seocheon-si Office

Seoul High Court Decision 97Gu29532 delivered on July 2, 1998

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the provisions of Article 5-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Urban Planning Act, where non-permission with respect to an application for permission for changing the form and quality of the land in an urban planning zone is not sufficient enough to abstractly obstruct the rational utilization of the land in question or the urban planning project, and specifically, it is not in conformity with the standards set by the Regulations on the Standards, etc. for Permission for Changing the Form and Quality of Land, which is an Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu18380, Sept. 12, 1997). Meanwhile, the urban planning decision is effective due to the announcement of the urban planning decision and does not result from the announcement of the approval of the cadastral published drawings. However, in general, the drawings of the urban planning decision cannot specify the specific scope or the individual urban planning lines of the land, the specific scope of individual urban planning decision is determined by the cadastral published drawings (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Nu3483, Jul. 29, 1994).

2. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that: (a) the Plaintiff’s construction of the above 1,702 square meters of land (hereinafter “instant land”) was legitimate on November 21, 1996 on the 1,000 square meters of land and the 702 square meters of land ( Address 1 omitted); and (b) on December 12, 1997, the Plaintiff applied for the construction permit of the above 9-1,000 square meters of land on the 1,000 square meters of land and the 1,000 square meters of the above 4-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-9-6-9-6-9-6-6-6-9-6-9-6-9-6-6-9-6-9-6-6-6-6-7--7--77--77---77----77, which is located on the 1,00000.

However, it is not enough to judge whether the land in this case is subject to permission for construction non-permission only where it is not in conformity with the standards set by the Regulations on the Criteria for Permission for Change, etc. of Form and Quality of Land, which is an order of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation, and specifically, it is necessary to judge whether the land in this case constitutes an area requiring the maintenance of its original form and quality for public purposes, which is the standard set by the above regulations. However, since the specific and individual scope of urban planning decision are determined by the cadastral announcement drawings, it is determined by the cadastral announcement drawings, so it is not necessary to judge that the land in this case is included in the intersection and buffer green belt due to the cadastral approval as prescribed in Article 196-25 of the Non-Party 196 of the Non-Party 1's Non-Party 1's Non-Party 1's Non-Party 1's non-party 1'the above land's alteration of its original form and quality, or it is not necessary to review whether the land in this case is included in the green belt or green belt.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)