[2] The meaning of "housing site used and developed in accordance with the plan for use" under Article 26 (1) 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Site

[3] The case reversing the judgment of the court below that where a religious corporation applied for permission to acquire a housing site for the use of the "extension for the extension of an education hall" and "use of the site for a parking lot," but only the "extension for the extension of an education hall," it constitutes a use pursuant to the permitted use plan for the parking lot site

[4] Whether Article 3 subparagraph 5 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites can be applied to an attached parking lot of a building, the use of which was changed from a house to a church education center without permission (negative)

[5] In a case where a parcel of land used as an annexed parking lot for a building, other than a house, satisfies the requirements of the annexed parking lot under the Parking Lot Act, whether the part within the minimum standard area of the annexed parking lot is excluded from the site subject to the charge under Article 3 subparagraph 5 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on

[2] Article 26 (1) 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites excludes the subject of charges for housing sites and development housing sites acquired by obtaining permission for the acquisition of housing sites and by final and conclusive judgments, etc., which are used and developed in accordance with a plan for use. Thus, the subject of charges should be used and developed in accordance with the contents of permission during the period for the imposition of charges to be excluded from the subject of imposition of charges under the above Enforcement Decree.

[3] The case reversing the judgment of the court below that where a religious corporation applied for permission to acquire a housing site by using the "educational hall extension" and "use of the site for a parking lot," but it is difficult to grant permission to use only the "extension of a parking lot" as a plan, since it constitutes a use pursuant to the permitted use plan, certain areas are excluded from the imposition of excess ownership charges pursuant to Article 12 subparagraph 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Ownership of a Housing Site.

[4] A building lawfully constructed for residential purpose, which is actually used as a church education center, is still a house under Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the Housing Site Ownership Act, and it does not constitute a building under Article 2 subparagraph 1 (b) of the same Act and Article 2 subparagraph 1 (1) and Article 3 subparagraph 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. Thus, the attached parking lot shall not be excluded from the scope of land within the standard area of the attached parking lot by applying Article 3 subparagraph 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13610 of March 7, 192).

[5] Even if a certain land is not a parking lot established as a result of performing the duty of installation under the Parking Lot Act at the time of building permission, if it is actually used as an annexed parking lot for a building, and if it satisfies the requirements as an annexed parking lot for a building under the Parking Lot Act, the part within the minimum standard area of the annexed parking lot among them under Article 3 subparagraph 5 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Site (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13610 of March 7, 192) shall be excluded from the subject of the excessive ownership charges

The plaintiff did not submit the appellate brief within the prescribed period and did not state any grounds for appeal in the petition of appeal.

2. We examine the defendant's grounds of appeal.

A. Article 10(2) of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites (hereinafter “the Act”) provides that a person who intends to obtain permission for the acquisition of a housing site shall submit a use plan at the time of the application for permission. The purpose of this provision is to determine whether to permit the acquisition of a housing site and to compel the head of a Si/Gun who received the application for permission for the acquisition of a housing site to use and develop the housing site as permitted (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 95Nu9242 delivered on December 19, 196). Meanwhile, Article 26(1)5 of the Enforcement Decree (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1382 delivered on May 10, 1993) of the Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13882, May 10, 1993) excludes a housing site and a development housing site acquired through a final and conclusive judgment, and thus, the housing site acquired with permission for the acquisition of a housing site shall be used and developed in accordance with the plan for the imposition of charges.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined on August 14, 1991 that the Plaintiff, a religious corporation, submitted an application for permission for the acquisition of a housing site and a plan for the use of a site (use plan) for two purposes (the “extension of an education hall” and “use of a site for a parking lot” after annexation of 14,00 square meters to the Defendant on August 14, 1991, but obtained a permit for the acquisition of an education hall from the Defendant on August 17, 199, and acquired a lot of 262 square meters and 393.4,000 square meters (hereinafter referred to as the “instant portion”) for the purpose of using the same 44 and 316 square meters on June 1, 192, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the imposition of a 262 square meters on the instant parking lot (the subsequent land is 57 large 709,709,000 square meters on August 20, 1994).

B. However, if the land portion of this case is used in compliance with the requirements as an annexed parking lot for a building, it should be excluded from the subject of imposition by being excluded from the minimum standard area of the annexed parking lot.

Article 2 subparag. 2 of the Act and the main sentence of Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act provides that the buildings constructed to be used for residential purposes shall be defined as housing; buildings other than housing and buildings; Article 2 subparag. 1 (b) of the Act and Article 3 subparag. 5 of the Enforcement Decree (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13610 of March 7, 1992) of the Act and Article 3 subparag. 3 of the Addenda of the Enforcement Decree of the Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13610 of the Act) shall be defined as 97.444 of the annexed parking lot (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1365 of March 7, 1992) within the scope of 9.6m of the annexed parking lot, which is 1.6m2 of the annexed parking lot (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1974 of March 7, 197) and the land within the scope of 196m2 of the annexed parking lot, which is not the standard area.

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed and remanded to the court below. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal dismissed are assessed against the plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)