[용도변경불허가처분취소][공1994.8.1.(973),2127]
Where the location of a parking lot is changed to the place by establishing a nearby parking lot after obtaining a building permit, whether the use of an attached parking lot established inside the original facility may be changed.
Article 19-4 (1) of the Parking Lot Act provides that an annexed parking lot once installed shall not be permitted to change its use in principle, but it shall be exceptionally permitted to change its use only in cases falling under the criteria prescribed by the Presidential Decree. Thus, Article 12 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that only exceptional cases shall be applied to strict interpretation in light of the purpose of legislation. Thus, the change of the location of a parking lot in the inside or outside of the facility shall not be deemed to fall under the change of the location of the parking lot inside or outside the facility as provided in Article 12 (1) 2 of the Enforcement Decree.
Article 19-4 (1) of the Parking Lot Act and Article 12 (1) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Parking Lot Act
limited liability companies and their identity companies
The head of Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government
Gwangju High Court Decision 92Gu2348 delivered on July 22, 1993
The judgment below is reversed. The case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.
The defendant's grounds of appeal are examined.
The court below determined that, in the case of the construction of the above-mentioned parking lots under the provisions of Article 14 of the Enforcement Decree of the Road Traffic Act, the construction of the above-mentioned parking lot by the head of the 1st and 2nd and the above-mentioned parking lot is not possible for the following reasons; the construction of the 1st and 4th and lower-ranking parking lots under the provisions of Article 191 of the Enforcement Decree of the Road Traffic Act; the construction of the 1st and lower-ranking parking lots under the provisions of Article 46th and lower-ranking parking lots is not possible for the following reasons; the construction of the 1st and lower-ranking parking lots under the provisions of the 194th and lower-ranking parking lots under the provisions of the 1st and lower-ranking Enforcement Decree of the same Act; the construction of the 1st and lower-ranking parking lots under the provisions of the 194th and lower-ranking parking lots under the provisions of the 194th and lower-ranking parking lots shall not be permitted to be altered within the 14th and lower-ranking parking lots.
However, Article 19-4 (1) of the Parking Lot Act provides that an annexed parking lot once installed shall not be permitted to change its use in principle, but it shall be exceptionally permitted to change its use only in cases falling under the criteria prescribed by the Presidential Decree. Thus, Article 12 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that only exceptional cases shall be applied strictly in light of the purpose of legislation. It shall not change the location of a parking lot inside or outside the facility, but it shall not be deemed that the change of the location of a parking lot inside or outside the facility as in this case does not constitute a change of the location of the parking lot inside or outside the facility.
Nevertheless, the court below held that the defendant's rejection of the change of use of this case was illegal on the ground of its decision. The court below erred in the misapprehension and application of the Parking Lot Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act on the change of use of annexed parking lots, and it is clear that such illegality affected the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, there is a reason to point out
Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, 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 Kim Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)