Open Decision Ledger · Constitutional, administrative & state liability
Binding force of a rehearing decision and limits on refusing a building permit
Supreme Court, Apr. 25, 2003, 2002Du3201 (judgment)
Case name: 건축불허가처분취소
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
May an administrative authority refuse again, on a ground held unlawful by a rehearing decision and resting on the same basic facts, and may a building permit authority refuse an application on grounds beyond the restrictions set by the Building Act and the Urban Planning Act?
Holding
No. A rehearing decision under Article 37 of the Administrative Appeals Act binds the disposition authority as to its order and the findings and judgments on the element facts underlying it, so a fresh decision on the same content, raised on a ground held unlawful and sharing the same basic facts, is not permitted. A building permit authority must grant a permit as long as the application clashes with no restriction set by the Building Act, the Urban Planning Act and other related statutes, and without a serious public interest need it may not refuse a permit to an applicant who meets the requirements on any ground outside those statutory restrictions.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
행정심판법 제37조가 정하고 있는 재결은 당해 처분에 관하여 재결주문 및 그 전제가 된 요건사실의 인정과 판단에 대하여 처분청을 기속하므로, 당해 처분에 관하여 위법한 것으로 재결에서 판단된 사유와 기본적 사실관계에 있어 동일성이 인정되는 사유를 내세워 다시 동일한 내용의 처분을 하는 것은 허용되지 않는다.
Unofficial English translation
The decision provided for in Article 37 of the Administrative Appeals Act is binding upon the agency that made the disposition with respect to the operative part of the decision and the finding and determination of the requirements and facts on which it was premised, in relation to the disposition in question; therefore, it is not permissible, on grounds that were found unlawful in the decision with respect to the disposition in question and grounds that are deemed identical in terms of the basic facts, to again make a disposition of the same content.
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용 중 피고 보조참가로 인한 부분은 피고 보조참가인들이, 그 나머지 부분은 피고가 각 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. Of the costs of the final appeal, the portion attributable to the auxiliary intervention in favor of the defendant shall be borne by the intervenors in favor of the defendant, and the remaining portion shall be borne by the defendant, respectively.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
중대한 공익상의 필요가 없음에도 불구하고, 요건을 갖춘 자에 대한 허가를 관계 법령에서 정하는 제한 사유 이외의 사유를 들어 거부할 수는 없다.
Unofficial English translation
In the absence of any grave necessity in the public interest, a permit applied for by a person who meets the requirements cannot be refused on grounds other than the grounds for restriction prescribed by the relevant statutes and regulations.
Factors
- 당해 처분에 관하여 위법한 것으로 재결에서 판단된 사유와 기본적 사실관계에 있어 동일성이 인정되는 사유를 내세워 다시 동일한 내용의 처분을 하는 것은 허용되지 않는다
- 건축법, 도시계획법 등 관계 법규에서 정하는 어떠한 제한에 배치되지 않는 이상 당연히 같은 법조에서 정하는 건축허가를 하여야 하고
- 중대한 공익상의 필요가 없음에도 불구하고, 요건을 갖춘 자에 대한 허가를 관계 법령에서 정하는 제한 사유 이외의 사유를 들어 거부할 수는 없다
Unofficial English translation
• It is not permissible, on grounds that were found unlawful in the decision on an administrative appeal with respect to the disposition in question and grounds that are deemed identical in terms of the basic facts, to again make a disposition of the same content
• insofar as it is not contrary to any restriction prescribed by the relevant statutes and regulations, including the Building Act and the Urban Planning Act, a building permit prescribed in the same statutory provision must, as a matter of course, be granted, and
• in the absence of any grave necessity in the public interest, a permit applied for by a person who meets the requirements cannot be refused on grounds other than the grounds for restriction prescribed by the relevant statutes and regulations
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 1983. 8. 23. 선고 82누302 판결(공1983하, 1423)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 82Nu302 decided August 23, 1983 (Gong 1983 Ha, 1423)
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 1982. 5. 11. 선고 80누104 판결(공1982, 571), 대법원 1983. 8. 23. 선고 82누302 판결(공1983하, 1423), 대법원 1989. 2. 28. 선고 88누6177 판결(공1989, 551), 대법원 1990. 12. 11. 선고 90누3560 판결(공1991, 495), 대법원 1992. 7. 14. 선고 92누2912 판결(공1992, 2428), 대법원 1998. 2. 27. 선고 96누13972 판결(공1998상, 919), 대법원 2001. 3. 23. 선고 99두5238 판결(공2001상, 1012) / [2] 대법원 1989. 3. 28. 선고 88누10541 판결(공1989, 702), 대법원 1992. 6. 9. 선고 91누11766 판결(공1992, 2157), 대법원 1992. 12. 11. 선고 92누3038 판결, 대법원 1995. 10. 13. 선고 94누14247 판결(공1995하, 3802), 대법원 1995. 10. 13. 선고 94누14247 판결(공1995하, 3802), 대법원 1995. 12. 12. 선고 95누9051 판결(공1996상, 414), 대법원 2002. 10. 25. 선고 2001두1291 판결
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
What would count as the serious public interest need that may still justify refusing a building permit to an applicant who meets every statutory requirement?
A later decision on how far Article 37 of the Administrative Appeals Act binds a disposition authority, or on what counts as a serious public interest need, would call for this entry to be read again. So would a statutory amendment to Article 8 of the former Building Act or the repeal or replacement of the corresponding provisions of the former Urban Planning Act, since the decision applied the versions in force before the amendment of 28 January 2000 and the repeal of 4 February 2002.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
8 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-24
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on all 8 axes.
Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Busan High Court, in its judgment of 15 March 2002 (2001Nu2904), held the refusal of 14 October 2000 unlawful. It reasoned that the refusal ran against the binding force of the rehearing decision, that the site, the surrounding roads, and the parking area and scale of the discount store made it hard to see traffic problems grave enough to justify refusal, that the store did not have to be preceded by an urban planning facility designation and had never been so designated, and that accepting the application neither impaired the credibility of administration nor offended equity.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error. Reading the reasons together with the law, the related provisions and the record, it held that the court below had neither failed to examine what was needed nor misread the law on the binding force of the rehearing decision or on public interest, equity and the credibility of administration, and dismissed the appeal by the unanimous opinion of the Justices.
Distinguishing conditions
- A second refusal raised on a ground whose basic facts differ from those of the ground held unlawful by the rehearing decision, so that identity of the basic facts is absent.
- A refusal supported by a serious public interest need, which is the condition the Court named before the statutory restrictions exhaust the authority's grounds.
- An application that conflicts with a restriction set by the Building Act, the Urban Planning Act or other related statutes, since the Court's rule governs only applications free of such conflict.
Record verification notes
Set the ground of the second decision beside the rehearing decision's order and the element facts it rested on, and confirm whether the two grounds share the same basic facts, since the prohibition turns on that identity. Then list every restriction in the former Building Act, the former Urban Planning Act and the former Rules on Urban Planning Facility Standards that could touch the application, and keep any serious public interest need separate, because it is the only ground the Court left open. Note that this decision applied the former Building Act as it stood before the amendment of 28 January 2000 and the former Urban Planning Act before its repeal of 4 February 2002.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 행정청이 당해 처분에 관하여 위법한 것으로 재결에서 판단된 사유와 기본적 사실관계에 있어 동일성이 인정되는 사유를 내세워 다시 동일한 내용의 처분을 하는 것이 허용되는지 여부(소극) [2] 건축허가권자가 관계 법령에서 정하는 제한사유 이외의 사유를 들어 그 허가신청을 거부할 수 있는지 여부(소극)
Unofficial English translation
[1] Whether it is permissible for an administrative agency, on grounds that were found unlawful in the decision on an administrative appeal with respect to the disposition in question and grounds that are deemed identical in terms of the basic facts, to again make a disposition of the same content (negative) [2] Whether a person having authority to grant a building permit may refuse the application for such permit on grounds other than the grounds for restriction prescribed by the relevant statutes and regulations (negative)
Summary of the holding
[1] 행정심판법 제37조가 정하고 있는 재결은 당해 처분에 관하여 재결주문 및 그 전제가 된 요건사실의 인정과 판단에 대하여 처분청을 기속하므로, 당해 처분에 관하여 위법한 것으로 재결에서 판단된 사유와 기본적 사실관계에 있어 동일성이 인정되는 사유를 내세워 다시 동일한 내용의 처분을 하는 것은 허용되지 않는다. [2] 건축허가권자는 건축허가신청이 건축법, 도시계획법 등 관계 법규에서 정하는 어떠한 제한에 배치되지 않는 이상 당연히 같은 법조에서 정하는 건축허가를 하여야 하고, 중대한 공익상의 필요가 없음에도 불구하고, 요건을 갖춘 자에 대한 허가를 관계 법령에서 정하는 제한 사유 이외의 사유를 들어 거부할 수는 없다.
Order
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용 중 피고 보조참가로 인한 부분은 피고 보조참가인들이, 그 나머지 부분은 피고가 각 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. Of the costs of the final appeal, the portion attributable to the auxiliary intervention in favor of the defendant shall be borne by the intervenors in favor of the defendant, and the remaining portion shall be borne by the defendant, respectively.
Provisions referred to
[1] 행정심판법 제37조 / [2] 구 건축법(2000. 1. 28. 법률 제6247호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제8조, 구 도시계획법(2002. 2. 4. 법률 제6655호로 폐지) 제3조, 제24조, 제30조, 제36조, 제46조, 구 도시계획시설기준에관한규칙(2000. 8. 18. 건설교통부령 제257호로 전문 개정되기 전의 것) 제56조
Read 2026-10-24 · Cross-read 2026-10-24. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger