Whether it is permitted to change the purpose of use of a house within a development-restricted zone to a general restaurant with an amusement customer as its main customer (negative)

Article 21 of the Urban Planning Act, Article 20 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act and Article 7 (1) 6 (c) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act allow the alteration of the purpose of use of residential buildings within development-restricted areas with permission from the head of Si/Gun for neighborhood living facilities. The purport of Article 21 of the same Act, such as Article 20 (1) of the same Act and Article 7 (1) 6 (c) of the Enforcement Rule, is to reduce the inconvenience of daily lives suffered by residents living in development-restricted areas by prohibiting the use of neighborhood living facilities due to prohibition of the new construction of buildings, but to limit it to the extent that does not interfere with the realization of the purpose of designating development-restricted areas. The purpose of changing the purpose of use of residential buildings to a general restaurant for operating

Article 21 of the Urban Planning Act, Article 20(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Urban Planning Act, Article 7(1)6(c) of the Enforcement Rule of the Urban Planning Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 (Attorney Kim In-sik, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Ansan Market (General Law Office, Attorneys Park Jong-Gyeong et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 96Gu23728 delivered on January 31, 1997

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

In light of the records, it cannot be said that there is any error in the fact-finding by the court below as to the fact-finding, which points out in the grounds of appeal, such as the misunderstanding of the witness Kim Jong-sik, which is revealed in the court below's argument that the court below violated the rules of evidence cannot be accepted.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, since Article 21 of the Urban Planning Act, Article 20 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 7 (1) 6 (c) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, etc. allow the change of the purpose of use of a residential building within a development-restricted zone to a residential facility with permission from the head of a Si/Gun, the purpose of which is to reduce the inconvenience of daily life suffered by residents living in a development-restricted zone by prohibiting the construction of a new building, but to limit it to the extent that does not interfere with the realization of the purpose of designating a development-restricted zone, the court below held that the Plaintiff’s transfer of a residential building and the change of use are more likely to be suspected of the act of real estate speculation, and even if the instant house becomes a restaurant, it can be seen that the residents living in a development-restricted zone are more than the facilities to be used by them. Thus, the Plaintiff’s alteration of the purpose of use to a general restaurant is contrary to the purpose of the permission system for the use of a residential building, and thus it cannot be viewed beyond the scope of discretion.

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 Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)