Whether selling part of a mountain place installed in accordance with the park planning under the Natural Parks Act constitutes alteration of use for sale to a specific person (affirmative)

The purpose of use at the time of the determination of the park planning, which was built by the head of mountain place in accordance with the park planning as prescribed by the Natural Parks Act, was for many and unspecified persons, but some of them were sold to a specific person by guest rooms and granted a right to own and use them, constitutes a kind of condominium use alteration, and it constitutes a change of use under Article 99 (1) 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 13655 of May 30, 192

Article 48 of the former Building Act (amended by Act No. 4381 of May 31, 1991); Article 99 (1) 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1365 of May 30, 1992)

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Lee Gyeong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Park Jong-soo

Chuncheon District Court Decision 92No325 delivered on November 12, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the facts acknowledged by the court below, the defendant, as representative director of the non-indicted corporation, constructed 92 guest rooms on the non-indicted 15 and 3 lots outside the 15 and 92 of Gangseo-dong, Yung-dong, Seo-dong, Seo-dong, the city park project implementation permission of the park project under the above park plan, and despite the fact that the use of the above park project implementation permission under the above park plan was at the time of the above park project implementation permission, the above guest rooms were offered accommodation facilities for the unspecified and many general tourists who find the above park and for their convenience, the above guest rooms of 47 out of the above guest rooms were specified to the specific individual by selling each guest room and granting the specific person the right to own and use the above accommodation, and if so, it is justified by the court below to change the above guest rooms to 15 and 500 out of Article 29 of the former Building Act (amended by Act No. 31500, Oct. 13, 1989).

2. According to the main sentence of Article 5 (1) of the former Building Act, a person who intends to construct or repair a building in a certain zone or any other zone, shall obtain permission from the head of Si/Gun, and Article 5 subparagraph 2 of the same Act provides that the owner of a building constructed or repaired on a large scale in violation of the main sentence of Article 5 (1) shall be punished. On the other hand, Article 48 of the same Act provides that the act of changing the use of a building shall be considered as a construction of a building in the application of this Act under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree. Accordingly, Article 9 (1) 7 of the same Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 1365 of May 30, 192) provides that the act of changing the use of a building for any purpose other than that of the park planning established pursuant to the Natural Parks Act shall be deemed as a construction of a building for which the head of the Si/Gun has altered the use of the building for any purpose other than that of the park planning established pursuant to the provisions of this case.

3. The issue is that the above act of changing the purpose of use refers to an act of changing the purpose determined pursuant to Article 16 of the Natural Parks Act without permission, and even if the defendant sold 47 guest rooms among 92 guest rooms of the accommodation facilities of this case to a specific person, it does not constitute an act of changing the purpose of use since it remains an accommodation facility of an unspecified family unit other than the exclusive use period of buyers. However, Article 16 of the Natural Parks Act does not stipulate the purpose of use of a building and does not stipulate the purpose of use of a building, but provides a specific person's guest rooms to an unspecified accommodation facility other than the exclusive use period of buyers. Thus, it cannot be accepted.

4. In addition, among the park facilities under the Natural Parks Act, hotel, inn, inn, inn, inn, inn, inn, inn, inn, inn, etc. (Article 2 subparagraph 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Natural Parks Act), and among the above accommodation facilities, the concept of the above accommodation is defined in Article 2 (1) 12 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Building Act and Article 12 (12) of the annexed table thereof. The term "inn't appear in the use regulations under the former Enforcement Decree of the Building Act, the defendant's act does not constitute an act of changing the purpose of use under the Building Act, and even if the defendant sold part of the mountain site in this case, it cannot be said that there was a change in the purpose of use under the Enforcement Decree of the Natural Parks Act, unless it actually uses it. However, even if the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act does not include a place, it cannot be interpreted because it does not define the concept under the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act, and it cannot be accepted.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below cannot be said to contain a misunderstanding of the legal principles like the theory of lawsuit, and there is no reason to discuss.

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

Justices Final Young-young (Presiding Justice)