[2] The case holding that even if the land which is a hospital building's parking lot is a separate lot and is reported as an off-road parking lot under the Parking Lot Act, if it is used as a parking lot for the employees and visitors

[2] The case holding that although the land used as a parking lot for the employees and visitors of the hospital building is separate from the land on which the hospital building is located, it is acquired after the hospital building was constructed, and it is reported as an off-road parking lot under the Parking Lot Act, it constitutes the land annexed to the building in light of the actual situation of use

The issue of whether the land is the land annexed to a building under Article 3 subparagraph 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Site Ownership Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14663, Jun. 14, 1995) shall not be determined by whether the land is separate from the land on which the building is located or one parcel, or whether the land was acquired after the building permit or after the building was constructed, but it shall be objectively determined by the actual use during the period for which the charge is imposed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Nu8372, Dec. 27, 1994; 95Nu149, Jul. 14, 1995); provided that the main use of the land is a parking lot for employees and visitors using the building, even if it is reported as an off-road parking lot under the Parking Lot Act, it constitutes the land annexed to the building in light of the actual use status (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Nu1667, May 16, 1995).

The court below's decision that the whole area of the above 4,5,6, and 7 land is less than the area of the annexed land calculated by the calculation method specified in subparagraph 1 [Attachment Table 1] [Attachment Table 1] of Article 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the above Act, since the whole area of the above 4,5,6, and 7 land is less than the area of the annexed land calculated by the calculation method stipulated in [Attachment Table 1] of the annexed Table 6, 7, and the land 4, 5, which is separate from the above 6, 7 land used as the hospital's employees and visitors' parking lot for the hospital building in the 6, 7th and the visitors' parking lot, and the hospital building was acquired after the building was constructed, and even if it was reported as an off-road parking lot under the Parking Lot Act, it is just in accordance with the above legal principles, and there is no violation of the rules

In addition, if the above 4 and 5 land is not the annexed parking lot under the Parking Lot Act because it is not the land of the hospital building, but the land of the hospital building is not the land of the site, and as a result, no land owned by the plaintiffs, it is necessary to determine whether the above 4 and 5 land is the annexed parking lot under the Parking Lot Act and the minimum standard area of the annexed parking lot which is deducted within the scope of the site should be determined. Therefore, the argument of the lawsuit is not acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the annexed parking lot and the housing site subject to imposition under the Parking Lot Act in the judgment of the court below

Therefore, the appeal is 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 Don-hee (Presiding Justice)