Plaintiff (Law Firm Lee & Lee, Attorneys Song-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The head of Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

October 17, 2008

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The defendant's notification to the plaintiff on May 15, 2008 as a result of deliberation by the Korea Urban Planning Commission shall be revoked.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 5, 2007, pursuant to Article 63 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Act”) and Article 8 of the Framework Act on the Regulation of Land Use, the Defendant issued the Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Public Notice of Restriction on Permission for Development Activities and Notification of Topographical Map (hereinafter “Public Notice of this case”) with the following contents as the Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Notice of Article 2007-57 of the Framework Act

1. Restricted areas;

-Location and size: Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 2, main Dong and Dong-dong 2, approximately 708,000 square meters

2. Grounds for restrictions:

- In this area, which is an old-age and poor housing densely-populated area, requires a wide-area residential-centered development according to the results of a basic survey on the current status, as urban infrastructure maintenance and expansion and residential environment improvement projects should be promoted by establishing an urban management plan for various development projects, maintenance projects, etc. in the future. As such, it is necessary to restrict permission for development activities since it is anticipated to change a special-purpose area, special-purpose

3. Restriction period:

- 3 years from the date of notification of restrictions on development activities

4. Restricted objects: Construction of buildings and division of land under Article 56 (1) 1 and 4 of the National Land Act, and subparagraph 1 and 5 of Article 51 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act;

- Building permits under Article 8 of the Building Act

-Land division-restricted lands: Division of lands under Article 56(1)4 of the National Land Act (excluding the sites wherein the structures under Article 49 of the Building Act exist), and the subdivision of lands below the size of partition restriction under Article 51 subparag. 5(b) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act and Article 49(1) of the Building Act;

- Decision on whether to grant permission for an urban planning project for installation of structures, such as a building report, change of permitted or reported matters, change of purpose of use and retaining walls, etc., and for installation of public facilities under the provisions of Articles 9, 10, 14 and 72 of the Building Act, after deliberation by the Gu Urban Planning Committee;

(hereinafter omitted)

B. The Plaintiff owned one tenement house (50.34 square meters in total floor area) on the ground located in the area subject to the instant public notice (number 1 omitted), and two tenement houses (48.91 square meters in total floor area, 67.67 square meters in total floor area, respectively) on the same ground (number 2 omitted) on the ground located in Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, Guro-gu, Seoul, where the instant public notice is located, and removed all of them on February 2008 (hereinafter “instant land”).

C. On March 19, 2008, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for deliberation of the Guro-gu Urban Planning Committee on the said new construction report (hereinafter “instant new construction report”) to newly construct the second floor neighborhood living facilities (a steel reinforced concrete structure, a total floor area of 64.08 square meters) on the land above the above (number 2 omitted) and the first floor neighborhood living facilities (a total floor area of 49.50 square meters) on the land above the above (number 1 omitted).

D. The Defendant requested the deliberation of the instant committee upon the Plaintiff’s request, and the instant committee rejected the instant report on May 7, 2008 on the ground that “the calculation of old age, which is a requirement for the development of a new town, has an impact on the calculation of old age,” and the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the results of the said deliberation on May 15, 2008 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

【Facts without dispute over the ground for recognition】 Facts, Gap's evidence 1 through 6, Eul's evidence 1 through 3 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In light of the fact that the land of this case needs to be re-developed in the future, that the Plaintiff had already removed the existing building on the land of this case, and that the Plaintiff had no intention of “the division of shares”, etc., the instant disposition is unlawful (it is alleged that the Plaintiff did not have any other ground to limit the building permit, but it appears that it was before the amendment of the purport of this case’s disposition, which is not directly related to the legality of the instant disposition, and thus, it is not determined).

(b) Related statutes;

【National Land Planning and Utilization Act】

Article 56 (Permission for Development Acts)

(1) Any person, who intends to do an act falling under any of the following subparagraphs and prescribed by Presidential Decree (hereinafter referred to as "development act"), shall obtain permission (hereinafter referred to as "permission for development acts"), from the Special Metropolitan City Mayor, Metropolitan City Mayors, or heads of Sis/Guns:

1. Construction of buildings, or installation of structures;

Article 63 (Restriction on Permission for Development Acts)

(1) The Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, a Mayor/Do Governor, or the head of a Si/Gun may restrict permission for development activities only once for a period not exceeding three years, after deliberation by the Central Urban Planning Committee or the Local Urban Planning Committee, as prescribed by Presidential Decree, with respect to any of the following areas deemed particularly necessary for urban management planning

3. An area for which a basic urban planning or urban management planning is formulated, and for which a change of a specific-use area, specific-use district or specific-use zone is expected, and the standards for permission for development activities are expected to vary drastically accordingly

(2) The Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, the Mayor/Do Governor, or the head of a Si/Gun shall, when he/she intends to restrict permission for development activities pursuant to paragraph (1), publicly notify in advance the restricted area, restricted acts, restricted acts and restriction period,

(c) Markets:

1) The Defendant issued the instant disposition with the purport of denying the instant report of new construction through deliberation by the Committee in accordance with the instant public notice. If the Defendant deviatess from and abused discretion in the instant disposition, the instant disposition is unlawful, and the Plaintiff’s assertion is against the purport of asserting such deviation and abuse of discretion.

2) However, considering the following circumstances revealed from the purport of the entire facts and pleadings, namely, ① the instant public notice is interpreted to allow exceptionally only in the case of the instant new construction report, ② the Defendant rendered the instant disposition according to the result of deliberation by the commission, ③ In light of the deliberation of the commission, if the Plaintiff seeks to construct a temporary building of the same size as a substitute for the instant land, such new construction would be likely to be allowed, and ④ the period during which development activities are restricted by the public notice of this case, and the new construction of this case would be permitted extensively after the lapse of such period, even if considering all other circumstances alleged by the Plaintiff, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant abused or abused discretion in the instant disposition, even if considering all other circumstances alleged by the Plaintiff.

3) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit, and the disposition of this case is not erroneous as otherwise alleged by the Plaintiff.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking the revocation of the disposition of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Dong-gu (Presiding Judge)