도시및주거환경정비법위반
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The prosecutor's grounds of appeal are as follows: (a) the court's decision on the lawsuit for non-performance of services between the City General Certified Architect's Office (hereinafter "T") and E Multilater Housing Reconstruction and Maintenance and Improvement Project Association (hereinafter "the decision of this case") is subject to perusal and copy under Article 81(6) of the Act on Non-Litigation of Urban and Residential Environments; (b) however, the court below is not subject to perusal and copy, although it is subject to perusal and copy under Article 81(6) of the Act.
In light of the facts charged in this case, the court below acquitted the defendant on the facts charged in this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the legislative purport of the Act and the legal principles that erroneously interpreted relevant laws and regulations, and misapprehending the facts.
2. Determination
A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is the head of the E-style Housing Reconstruction Project Association, which constructs apartment complexes of 30 stories underground and 30 stories above ground in size of 44,364 square meters in Suwon-gu, Busan, and F, a member of the said association.
Where a member requests perusal or reproduction of documents and related materials concerning the implementation of a rearrangement project, the chairperson of the promotion committee or the project implementer shall comply with such request within 15 days.
On September 4, 2015, the Defendant was requested to inspect the judgment of the first instance court on the Ethyle Housing Reconstruction Association (hereinafter “Ethyle Housing Reconstruction Association”) that received a request from F for construction design service from F before the office of the Ethyle Reconstruction Association located in Suwon-gu, Busan, and then rejected the request without justifiable reasons.
B. In full view of the contents and the form of language and text of the relevant provisions, the lower court’s judgment determined that the documents and relevant materials listed in each subparagraph of Article 81(1) and each subparagraph of Article 81(6) of the Act, and each subparagraph of Article 70(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act are subject to disclosure, perusal, and reproduction of documents and materials pertaining to the implementation of a rearrangement project, and the documents and materials not listed in the said provision are subject to perusal, perusal, and reproduction.