[건축신고불수리처분취소][미간행]
In a case where the owner of a house which was removed by mistake of an administrative agency in the course of performing construction works on the road for urban planning facilities, and another building report was filed, but the administrative agency did not repair the building report, and the said report was not accepted, the case affirming the judgment below holding that the above disposition is lawful on the ground that even if the above house was removed due to the involvement of the administrative agency's causes such as mistake, it cannot be seen as "the case where it was destroyed by a natural disaster or other disasters" under the Enforcement Decree
Article 2 subparagraph 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act
Plaintiff 1 and one other (Law Firm Youngpo, Attorney Kim Jin-jin, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
South Ocean Market
Seoul High Court Decision 2010Nu6269 decided September 1, 2010
All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
1. Article 2 subparag. 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act provides that "renovation" means to remove all or part of an existing building (referring to cases in which at least three bearing walls, columns, beams, and roof trusses are included) and to reconstruct a building on the site of the existing building within the same size as that of the previous building. Article 2 subparag. 4 provides that "renovation" means to reconstruct a building on the site of the existing building in cases where a building is destroyed due to a natural disaster or other accidents within the same size as that of the previous building.
2. citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the non-party 1 removed the instant housing on the ground that the non-party 2 was the non-party 4's disposal of the above 6's building report on November 203, 200, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 5's building report on the non-party 2, the non-party 2, the non-party 2, the non-party 4, the non-party 5's building report on the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 4, the non-party 2, the non-party 5's building report on the non-party 2, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 4, the non-party 5's building report on the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 2, the non-party 9's demolition of the above housing on May 7, 20008, the non-party 9.
3. In light of the above relevant provisions and records, the fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to reconstruction under Article 2 subparagraph 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act or incomplete hearing as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.
4. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)