(b) The meaning of "permanent building" as provided in subparagraph 1 (b) of Article 2 of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Site;

B. In full view of the contents and purport of the relevant provisions such as Article 2 subparag. 1 (b) of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites and Articles 2 and 3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13882 of May 10, 193), the term “permanent building” under Article 2 subparag. 1 (b) of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites means a building for which permission or report is required under the provisions of the Building Act and other related Acts and subordinate statutes, and which is not permitted or reported, and which is a building subject to inspection of completion and which is a building subject to inspection of completion.

All of the plaintiff's appeal and the defendant's remaining appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each party.

A. As to the first ground for appeal

(1) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the Plaintiff continued to use the above 2-year-old building with 10 square meters for 5-year-old buildings (hereinafter referred to as "Dong-dong building," 2-dong buildings with 14 square meters for 5-year-old buildings and 59.5 square meters for 5-year-old buildings, and the remaining 12.65 square meters for 5-year-old buildings with 4 square meters for 5-year-old buildings with 14 square meters for 5-year-old buildings and 9-dong offices. The lower court determined that the Plaintiff’s construction registration was completed in his name on July 25, 1983; the Defendant’s construction registration was completed on a 9-year-old building with 14 square meters for 5-year-old buildings with 94 square meters for 5-year-old buildings and 94 square meters for 5-year-old buildings with 94 square meters for 19-year-old buildings.

(2) However, where a building was constructed for its original residential use, and is used as an office without due cause without due cause, the site of the building is still a site subject to regulation under the Act, barring special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Nu1968, May 10, 1994; 94Nu11606, Jan. 12, 1995; 94Nu1606, Jan. 12, 1995); and Article 2 subparag. 1(b) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites and Article 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, and its purport are comprehensively taken into account the contents and purport of the relevant provisions such as Article 2 subparag. 1(b) of the Act, “permanent building” refers to a building which is required to be permitted or reported under the Building Act and other relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, and which is not subject to inspection of completion (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Nu5384, May 1965, 1985.).

(3) Nevertheless, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the "permanent building" under Article 2 subparagraph 1 (b) of the Act or the scope of the housing site, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, on the ground that the part which was used as an office without due process of change of use, among the building attached to the Dong-dong in this case, and was used as an office or the site for the extension without permission, shall be excluded from the housing site subject to the application of the Act. Therefore, the ground for appeal pointing this out has merit.

B. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

Based on the evidences of macroscopia, the court below acknowledged the fact that the plaintiff purchased in 1984 3, 2, 1015, 3, Busan-gu, Busan-gu, Busan-do, and 3, 2, 3, 2, 1015, and held that the share of the above apartment site (the converted area 41.2mm2mm2) of the plaintiff's ownership in the above apartment site is consistent with the requirements for exemption from the charge in the basic area, use, etc.

In addition, the argument that the land cannot be excluded from the site subject to imposition because the plaintiff did not submit the use plan for the above apartment site ownership, does not constitute a legitimate ground for appeal due to a new argument that is not asserted in the original judgment.

All arguments are without merit.

2. We examine the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal.

In light of the relevant statutes and the records, it is reasonable for the court below to determine that the value of the building attached to the annexed building of this case is less than 10/100 of the value of the land, and to regard all of 31.3 square meters of the land attached to the annexed building of this case as a site with the exception of the floor area of the building among the annexed building site of this case. There is no error of incomplete deliberation or misapprehension of legal principles

3. Therefore, since the part of the Defendant’s appeal against the Defendant regarding the land annexed to the instant case is well-grounded, the part of the lower judgment against the Defendant is reversed and remanded to the lower court. The Defendant’s remaining appeal and the Plaintiff’s appeal are all dismissed. The costs of appeal against the dismissed portion are assessed against each party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench

Justices Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)