logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2018.06.25 2018노33
건축법위반등
Text

All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (misunderstanding of legal principles) (1) was newly established under Article 71(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”), and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act [Attachment 2] through [Attachment 22] could limit the type, use, size, etc. of a building by municipal ordinance of a Si/Gun with respect to a building not provided for in the attached Table 2]. However, according to Article 76(1) of the same Act and Article 71(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the construction of “multi-class housing” is not prohibited in a Class 1 exclusive residential area; however, the remaining Yangyang City Mayor’s district unit planning (hereinafter “the instant public notice”) goes beyond the scope of delegation of higher-class laws and subordinate statutes; thus, it is invalid as it goes against Article 71(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act and goes beyond the scope of prohibition of construction of multi-class housing in an area designated as a Class 1 residential area.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that the defendant's alteration of the single house in the first-class exclusive residential area into multiple houses constitutes a violation of the National Land Planning Act is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The gist of the selective charge No. 1 of the instant facts charged against the prosecutor (misunderstanding of facts) was as follows: “The Defendant is the owner of the building indicated in the lower judgment that is located in the C Housing Site District, which is a Class A district unit planning zone in the urban area, No. 1 of the instant facts charged.”

A person who intends to repair a building shall obtain permission from the competent authorities.

Nevertheless, on November 2015, the Defendant did not obtain permission from the competent authority in the above building, and the boundary wall of the structure of steel reinforced concrete structure in the above housing which is one household.

arrow