B. Scope of alteration of purpose of use to be considered as construction of a building under the former Building Act (amended by Act No. 4381 of May 31, 1991)

(c) The case holding that an act of leasing neighborhood living facilities and buildings which are business facilities without permission constitutes an act of changing use without permission under Article 5 (1) of the same Act.

B. The alteration of the purpose of use, which is regarded as a construction of a building under the same Act, does not necessarily entail a tangible alteration that includes not only the alteration for other purposes, but also the use for other purposes, from the purposes stipulated in each subparagraph of the attached Table of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 13655 of May 30, 192).

(c) The case holding that an act of leasing neighborhood living facilities and buildings which are business facilities without permission constitutes an act of changing use without permission under Article 5 (1) of the same Act.

According to the records, the fact-finding by the court below is acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence. Furthermore, health class;

On the first ground for appeal

According to the provisions of Article 7-3 (1) of the former Building Act (wholly amended by Act No. 4381 of May 31, 1991), the owner or manager of a building shall always maintain and manage the site, structure, building equipment, form and use of the building in compliance with this Act, orders or dispositions under this Act, and other relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, and Article 5 subparagraph 3 of the same Act shall be punished if the owner of the building violates Article 7-3 (1) of the same Act. If the owner of the building is a corporation, the representative of the corporation bears the duty to maintain and manage the building under Article 7-3 (1) of the same Act as the manager of the building. Thus, the court below's reasoning is justified, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the joint penal provisions of Article 55 subparagraph 3 of the same Act and Article 7-3 (1) of the same Act.

In addition, the court below recognized the liability as an actor of a violation of Article 7-3 (1) of the same Act with respect to the act of defendant C's decision, and it does not recognize the liability with the legal fiction as the representative of the defendant A stock company. Therefore, the court below did not err in punishing the defendant C as the above legal entity and in punishing the above legal entity. Therefore, there is no reason to discuss.

On the second ground for appeal

1. The act of changing the purpose of use, which is regarded as a construction of a building under the former Building Act, includes not only the act of changing the use from the use under each subparagraph of the annexed Table of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act to another purpose, but also the act of using it for any other purpose, and the alteration does not necessarily necessarily entail a tangible alteration (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Do1580, Nov. 8, 198; 90Do2860, Mar. 27, 1991). According to the records, it is recognized that the defendant A Co., Ltd. leased the building of this case, which is a neighborhood living facility and business facility, to a factory of D Co., Ltd. with which the defendant C is the representative director without permission as prescribed by Article 5 (1) of the same Act, and it cannot be said that the court below erred in failing to rate it as a violation of Article 7-3 (1) of the same Act.

2. Article 54 of the former Building Act provides that the owner of a building constructed or repaired on a large scale in violation of Article 5(1) shall be punished, and Article 57 of the same Act provides that the owner of a building shall be appointed a representative if the owner is a corporation. Meanwhile, Article 57 of the same Act provides that the representative of a corporation, etc. of a corporation shall be punished in addition to the punishment of the actor if the representative, etc. of the corporation commits an act falling under Article 54 in connection with the business of the corporation. Thus, the court below's judgment against the above alteration of the use

3. In addition, even if the head of the Gu-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government issued a factory registration certificate to D Co., Ltd. on November 17, 1990 on the condition that the factory should be closed by October 30, 1993 with respect to D Co., Ltd., which used the instant building for the purpose of factory, according to the records, this is limited pursuant to Article 3 of the Addenda to the Industrial Placement and Factory Construction Act, and the above Act and the Building Act vary in the legislative purpose and subject matter of regulation. Thus, the fact that the above factory registration certificate was issued does not necessarily mean that the alteration of the purpose of use under the Building Act is permitted or legitimately allowed,

Therefore, the judgment of the court below to the same purport is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles like the theory of lawsuit. Therefore, the argument is without merit.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Final Young-young (Presiding Justice)