In a case where a building is extended, not only the physical structure attached to the existing building, but also whether the extended part can be an independent economic utility from the existing building in terms of its use and function, and whether it can be an independent object of ownership in the transaction, and the intention of its owner by extending it shall be determined comprehensively (see Supreme Court Decisions 94Da11606, Jun. 10, 1994; 2000Da63110, Oct. 25, 2002, etc.).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the record, the Plaintiff, the owner of the housing and neighborhood living facilities (hereinafter referred to as the “main building of this case”) with 98/252 shares in Mapo-gu, Seoul (hereinafter referred to as “Seoul”) and the second floor above the ground (hereinafter referred to as “the site of this case”), was found to have been extended without permission on the ground of this case by connecting it to the left side and back side of the main building of this case on March 15, 2010, the Defendant discovered that the building of this case was extended to 316 square meters of a panel and wooden roof (hereinafter referred to as “the violating building of this case”) on the ground of this case, and that the roof of this case is adjacent to the top left side of the second floor of the main building of this case, and that the extension of the main building of this case to the main building of this case, including the building of this case, can be allowed for a long period of time from the opening of the house of this case, and that the building of this case was extended to the left side by the building of this case.

Examining these facts in light of the above legal principles, the violating building of this case is used as the main room, warehouse, meal place of a restaurant which is organically connected to the main building of this case, and is extended to use it as a part of the main building of this case, and it does not seem to have any particular economic utility as it itself, and there is no evidence to deem that the violating building of this case was installed as the object of independent ownership, and therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the building of this case was owned by the plaintiff and owned by the plaintiff.

Furthermore, according to Articles 79(1) and 80(1) of the Building Act, the permitting authority shall, after receiving a corrective order for a building in violation of Article 79(1) and Article 80(1), impose a specific enforcement fine on the owner, contractor, field manager, owner, manager, or occupant who fails to comply with the corrective order within the corrective period. The above statutory provisions aim at promoting public welfare by improving the safety, function, and aesthetic view of the building. Although the owner directly caused the illegal state of the building or did not participate therein, the permitting authority may issue a corrective order to the owner

Nevertheless, the court below determined otherwise only for the reasons stated in its holding. In so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the owner, etc. who becomes the counter-party to the extension or the corrective order for the violated building.

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

Justices Min Il-young (Presiding Justice)