Whether approval under Article 47 (3) of the former Act on the Special Measures for Development of Agricultural and Fishing Villages can be deemed to have been obtained where a report of change of use under the Building Act is accepted.

According to the provisions of Article 47 (3) of the former Act on the Special Measures for the Development of Agricultural and Fishing Villages (amended by Act No. 4552 of Jun. 11, 1993), where land for use after obtaining permission under the provisions of Article 4 of the former Act on the Preservation and Utilization of Farmland is used for other purposes within a given period, approval shall be obtained from the head of the Gun, etc., and where permission under the provisions of Article 4 of the former Act on the Preservation and Utilization of Farmland is used for other purposes, the approval under the provisions of Article 47 (3) of the former Act on the Special Measures for the Development of Agricultural and Fishing Villages shall be used for specific purposes, and the approval under the provisions of Article 47 (3) of the former Act on the Special Measures for the Development of Farmland or the provisions of Article 47 (4) of the former Act on the Special Measures for the Development of Farmland shall not be deemed to have been included in the provisions of Article 47 (3) of the former Act or the provisions of Article 47 (4) of the former Act on the Special Measures for the Preservation and Utilization of Farmland Act.

Article 47(3) of the former Act on the Special Measures for Development of Agricultural and Fishing Villages (amended by Act No. 4552 of Jun. 11, 1993); Article 4 of the former Farmland Preservation and Utilization Act (amended by Act No. 4552 of Jun. 11, 1993); Articles 7(3), 8(4), 9(2), and 14 of the former Building Act (amended by Act No. 4919 of Jan. 5, 1995)

Defendant

A co-inspector;

Changwon District Court Decision 94No1213 delivered on May 26, 1995

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Changwon District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found the defendant's use of the farmland of 922 square meters at around February 1, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the "land of this case") at least 101, 101 on the 4th Gun, Gun, Gun, Gun, Gun, Gun, Gun, of 1993 without the authority's approval, for the purpose other than the purpose of reporting the diversion of farmland to the non-indicted Y, Kim Jong-chul, after reporting the diversion of farmland to the public authority around June 1992, and for the purpose of using the farmland as restaurant, it was found that the defendant's use of the farmland of 4th Gun No. 7 under the Act on the Special Measures for the Development of Agricultural and Fishing Villages (amended by Act No. 4552 of Jun. 11, 1993) was in violation of Article 75 and Article 47 (3) of the Act on the Improvement of Agricultural and Fishing Villages Facilities of this case, which the defendant had already reported the farmland of 1, Gun No.3.

2. In light of the provisions of the above related Acts and subordinate statutes, where a report on change of use under the Building Act is accepted, the above determination by the court below is understood to the purport that Article 7 (3) 5 of the Building Act is applied mutatis mutandis, and Article 47 (3) of the Act on the Special Measures for the Development of Farmland is also applied mutatis mutandis, where the head of a Gun, etc. has made a prior decision as to whether to allow the construction of a building on the relevant site pursuant to Articles 14, 9 (2), and 8 (4) of the Building Act, and where the head of a Gun, etc. to construct the relevant building on the relevant site is permitted pursuant to the provisions of the Building Act or other Acts.

However, according to Article 47 (3) of the Act on the Special Measures for the Development and Utilization of Farmland, where an diverted land with permission under Article 4 of the Act on the Preservation and Utilization of Farmland is used for other purposes within a certain period, the approval of the head of the Gun, etc. shall be obtained where it is used for other purposes, and the approval under Article 47 (3) of the Act on the Special Measures for the Development and Utilization of Farmland is an ex post facto control device for the diversion of land which is not farmland, and the approval under Article 47 (3) of the Act on the Special Measures for the Development and Utilization of Farmland is an ex post facto control device for the diversion of land which is used for specific purposes and for other purposes. In light of the fact that the approval under Article 47 (3) of the Act on the Preservation and Use of Farmland and the Special Measures for the Development of Farmland is a separate concept, and the approval under Article 47 (3) of the Act on the Development and Utilization of Farmland shall not be deemed to have been obtained where a report on the alteration of use under the Building is accepted.

In addition, according to the provisions of Articles 7(3), 8(4), 9(2) and 14 of the Building Act, where a building permit, building report, permission for change of purpose of use, or report of change of purpose of use has been made, permission or report under the provisions of Articles 7(3) and 8(4) of the Building Act shall be deemed to have been made. However, among the matters falling under any of the following subparagraphs, the permission for farmland conversion under Article 4 of the Farmland Preservation and Utilization Act shall be included in the provisions of Article 47(3) of the Act on the Special Measures for Development of Farmland, even though the permission for farmland conversion under Article 4 of the same Act is not included, the approval under Article 47(3) of the same Act or Article 8(4) of the Building Act shall not be deemed to be an example of restrictive provisions, so the approval under each of the above subparagraphs shall not be inferred or expanded.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to each of the above relevant provisions, and it is clear that this affected the judgment, and therefore, the argument pointing this out is justified.

3. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, we reverse the judgment below and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)