Whether a person who acquires only the ownership of an attached parking lot among the facilities and the attached parking lots owned by the same person is included in the scope of "person responsible for the management of the attached parking lot" under Article 19-4 (2) and (3) of the Parking Lot Act (affirmative)

In light of the legislative purpose of the Parking Lot Act (Article 1) and Article 19-4(1) and (2) of the Parking Lot Act, Article 12(1) and (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Parking Lot Act, and the purport of the relevant provisions that make it possible to change the use of an attached parking lot or to maintain its original function necessary to maintain and maintain the parking lot facilities installed in king by strictly limiting the cases where it is possible to change the use of an attached parking lot or it is not necessary to maintain its original function, by prescribing matters necessary for the installation, maintenance, and management of a parking lot, the scope of “a person who is responsible for the management of an attached parking lot” under Article 19-4(2) and (3) of the Parking Lot Act, which bears the duty to maintain the original function of an attached parking lot, includes only those who acquire the ownership of a facility and an attached parking lot among the annexed parking lots owned

Articles 1, 19-4 (1), (2), and (3) of the Parking Lot Act, Article 29 (2) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Parking Lot Act, Article 12 (1) and (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Parking Lot Act

Defendant

Defendant

Gwangju District Court Decision 2003No388 delivered on June 13, 2003

The appeal is dismissed.

1. A person who intends to build or install a building, a golf driving range, or other facilities that may cause demand for parking (hereinafter referred to as "facilities") in an urban area, quasi-urban area, or quasi-urban area as prescribed by the regulations of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, and a quasi-urban area as prescribed by the Municipal Ordinance of the local government, shall establish an annexed parking lot (including a parking lot for loading and unloading freight and for carrying out other businesses; hereinafter the same shall apply) inside the relevant facilities, and Article 19-4 (2) of the Parking Lot Act shall maintain the original function of an annexed parking lot so as not to impede the users of the relevant facilities to use an annexed parking lot; and Article 19-4 (3) of the same Act provides that the head of a Si/Gun/Gu shall order the owner of the relevant facilities or the person who is responsible for the management of an annexed parking lot without delay to reinstate the attached parking lot in violation of the provisions of paragraph (1) or (2) of the same Article; and Article 29 (2) 3 of the same Act provides that "a person who fails to implement an order for restitution without justifiable reason".

In light of the legislative purpose of the Parking Lot Act (Article 1) and Article 19-4(1) and (2) of the Parking Lot Act, and Article 12(1) and (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Parking Lot Act, where the use of an attached parking lot can be changed or where it is not necessary to maintain its original function, and the purport of the relevant provisions to ensure the maintenance of parking lot facilities installed in king and the proper function as a parking lot by strictly limiting the cases, it is reasonable to interpret that the scope of "a person who is responsible for the management of an attached parking lot" under Article 19-4(2) and (3) of the Parking Lot Act, which bears the duty to maintain the original function of an attached parking lot, includes only the person who acquires the ownership of a facility and an attached parking lot among the annexed parking lots owned by the same person.

In the same purport, the court below is just in finding the defendant who acquired only ownership of the attached parking lot of this case guilty of violating the Act on the Violation of the Parking Lot Act, even though he received an order to reinstate from the head of the competent Gu because he did not maintain its original function by closing the attached parking lot, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles

2. Examining the judgment of the court below and the evidence of the court of first instance cited by the court below in light of the records, the court below is just in finding the defendant guilty of violating the Disaster Management Act, even though the defendant was ordered by the head of the competent Gu to withdraw safety measures on the ground that the outside wall panel of the attached parking lot of this case has a high risk of causing a disaster, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misunderstanding of the legal principles on disaster management law.

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

Justices Yoon Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)