(a) Whether the major industry-academic partnership falls under the technical education class prescribed in paragraph (4) 9 of the attached Table of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act;

(b) Whether it violates the Building Act to change the use of the office for a place other than the exclusive residential area as a major industry-academic resource.

A. According to the proviso of Article 3-2 subparagraph 3 of the former Private Teaching Institutes Act (Act No. 3433 of Apr. 13, 1981), in light of the fact that the state forest is classified as technology in the field of management of affairs that can teach the state forest at a private teaching institute according to the attached Table of the Enforcement Decree (Presidential Decree No. 4397 of Dec. 4, 1969), it constitutes a technical training institute for the field of management of affairs.

B. According to Article 9 (1) 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Building Act (the Presidential Decree No. 11461 of Jun. 30, 1984), the change of use among each subparagraph of paragraph (4) of the same attached Table shall be deemed to be a construction of a building only in a residential area. Thus, even if an office falling under paragraph (4) 6 of the attached Table is changed to a main industrial university falling under paragraph (4) 9 of the attached Table in a non-exclusive residential area, it shall not be deemed to fall under the construction of a building under the Building Act because it is merely a change of use among subparagraphs of paragraph (4) of the attached Table, and therefore, even if the above change of use was changed without permission, it shall not be deemed to be a violation of the Building Act.

(a) Subparagraph 3 (b) of Article 3-2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Building Act (Act No. 3433, Apr. 13, 1981); Article 99(1)2 of the Building Act (Presidential Decree No. 11461, Jun. 30, 1984); Article 54 of the Building Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Busan District Court Decision 85No1473 delivered on June 20, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the proviso of Article 3-2, subparagraph 3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Private Teaching Institutes Act (Act No. 3433), which was enforced by the defendant at the time of the act of this case, the state industry and university institute shall be deemed to fall under the technical training institute for the field of business management, in light of the fact that the state industry and university institute classifys it as a technology for the field of business management where the private teaching institute can teach it.

However, according to the table of usage classification of a building under the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act (Decree No. 11461), it can be seen that the technical training center in the field of business management falls under paragraph (4) 6 of the attached Table. Meanwhile, according to Articles 5 (1) of the Building Act (Act No. 3644), and 5 (1) of the same Act at that time, any person who intends to construct or repair a building in an urban planning zone shall obtain permission from the head of Si/Gun in advance. Under Article 48 of the same Act, the act of changing the use of a building shall be deemed to be the construction of a building under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree. According to Article 54 of the same Act, the act of constructing or repairing a building in violation of the above Article 5 (1) of the Building Act shall be punished for acts in violation of the above Article 5 (4) of the same Act, but the alteration of use between the above annexed Table No. 4 of the Building Act and the above change of use of a building shall not be deemed to be legitimate without permission for the use of a residential area and its exclusive use.

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

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)