In cases of changing the use of exhibition halls to purchasing facilities, whether permission under Article 6 of the former Decree on the Management of Multi-Family Housing shall be obtained.

Where it is intended to change the purpose of a exhibition facility which is a welfare facility to a neighborhood living facility and use it, it shall obtain permission from the Minister of Construction and Transportation with the consent of the council of occupants' representatives pursuant to Article 6 (1) of the Decree on the Management of Multi-Family Housing, Article 6 (2) of the former Decree on the Management of Multi-Family Housing (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13655 of May 30, 192),

Article 3 subparag. 7 of the former Housing Construction Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 4530 of Dec. 8, 1992), Articles 52-2 subparag. 1, 38(2)1, and 38(3) of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 4723 of Jan. 7, 1994), Article 6(1) of the Decree on Management of Multi-Family Housing, Article 6(2) of the former Decree on Management of Multi-Family Housing (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14014 of Dec. 2, 1993), Article 2 subparag. 2 and 3 of the Regulations on Standards, etc. of Housing Construction, Article 5 subparag. 1 of the former Regulations on Standards, etc. of Housing Construction (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13851 of Feb. 20, 193), subparagraph 4 of attached Table 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13953 of Aug. 93)

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Attorney Limited-at-Law

Gwangju District Court Decision 93No679 delivered on November 12, 1993

All appeals are dismissed.

1. Examining the record, Defendant 1 was served on December 30, 1993 with the notification of the receipt of the trial records, but did not submit the statement of the grounds for appeal within the prescribed period, and the petition of appeal does not contain any indication in the grounds for appeal.

2. Defendant 2 and his state appointed defense counsel's grounds of appeal are examined.

A. Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, we affirm the fact-finding of the court below, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence.

(b) The Housing Construction Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 4530, Dec. 8, 192; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that the housing and incidental facilities and welfare facilities shall not be used for purposes other than those of the business plan, except for the cases where permission is obtained from the Minister of Construction and Transportation pursuant to Article 38 (2) 1 and (3) of this Decree; Article 6 (1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1365, May 30, 192; hereinafter the same shall apply); Article 9 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act provides that the housing construction standards shall be prescribed by the Ordinance No. 2 of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation; Article 9 (1) of the Housing Construction Promotion Act; Article 2 of the Housing Construction Promotion Act provides that the housing and welfare facilities shall be purchased and sold for non-permanent housing; Article 52-1 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act; Article 31 (2) of the Building Act provides that the housing construction standards shall be changed to the floor area of non-permanent facilities.

C. Thus, in order to use the store in this case for the purpose of exhibition hall as a purchase facility prescribed by the regulations on the housing construction standards, etc. of this case and a retail store which is a neighborhood living facility under Article 38 (2) 1 and (3) of the Housing Construction Promotion Act, and Article 6 (1), (2) and subparagraph 1 of attached Table 2 of the Decree on the Management of Multi-Family Housing, the court below's decision that the store in this case falls under Article 52-2 subparagraph 1 of the same Act is just and there is no error of law by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberation on the facts against the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the legal principles of Article 38 (2) of the same Act, etc.

Therefore, there is no reason to discuss all.

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

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)