Whether an act of leasing a stable-use building as a warehouse within a development-restricted zone without permission constitutes an act of changing the purpose of use without permission under Article 5(1) of the Building Act (affirmative)

An act of altering the purpose of use, which is regarded as a construction of a building under the Building Act, includes not only an act of changing the use to another purpose, but also an act of using it for another purpose from the usage as stipulated in each subparagraph of the attached Table of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, but also an act of changing the purpose of use without permission, and it constitutes an act of changing the purpose of use without permission under Article 5 (1) of the Building Act.

Articles 5(1) and 48 of the Building Act, Article 2(1)12, and Article 99(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act

Supreme Court Decision 88Do1580 delivered on November 8, 1988, Supreme Court Decision 89Do9 delivered on December 12, 1989, Supreme Court Decision 89Do2525 delivered on April 13, 1990

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Yellow-il

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 90No4778 delivered on November 13, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

Defendant’s counsel’s grounds of appeal are examined.

The act of changing the purpose of use, which is considered as construction of a building under the Building Act, includes not only the act of changing the use for other purposes, but also the act of using it for other purposes from the usage as stipulated in each subparagraph of the attached Table of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and the act of changing it does not necessarily necessarily require a tangible alteration (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 86Do1815, Jul. 8, 1986; Supreme Court Decision 88Do1580, Nov. 8, 198; etc.). According to the records, it is sufficiently recognized that the fact that the defendant leases the instant stable building to a warehouse without any permission within the development-restricted zone, such as the original judgment, and the court below is justified to deem the above defendant's act as the act of changing

According to the provisions of Articles 48 and 5 (1) of the Building Act, an act of altering the use of a building is considered to be a construction of a building in the application of the Building Act, so permission from the head of the competent Si/Gun shall be obtained. However, the alteration of use as determined by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation within the scope of not significantly different the site, structure and equipment of the building under Article 48 (2) 4 shall be substituted for the said permission by filing a prior report to the head of the competent Si/Gun. Accordingly, Article 4 (5) 1 through 7 of the Enforcement Rule of the Building Act lists the cases where the alteration of use is reported. As in this case, the decision of the court below to the effect that the alteration of use of a stable building to a warehouse is obviously the same that it does not fall under the subject matter to be reported under the above Enforcement Rule, and there is no

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

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)