Whether a change of use to be considered as a construction of a building under the former Building Act must necessarily entail a tangible change.

An alteration of the purpose of use to be considered as a construction of a building under Article 48 of the former Building Act (amended by Act No. 4381 of May 31, 1991) and Article 99 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Building Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1365 of May 30, 192) includes not only an alteration to the purpose of use as well as an act of using it for other purposes from the purpose stipulated in each subparagraph of the attached Table of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, but also an alteration does not necessarily necessarily entail a tangible alteration.

Article 48 of the former Building Act and Article 99 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Building Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law No.1993Sang, 1428)

Defendant

Defendant

Gwangju District Court Decision 92No201 delivered on May 6, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the Defendant’s grounds of appeal.

Article 48 of the former Building Act (amended by Act No. 4381 of May 31, 1991) and Article 99 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act include not only the act of changing the use of a building as well as the act of using it for other purposes from the use specified in each subparagraph of the attached Table of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, but also the act of using it for other purposes (see Supreme Court Decision 92Do322 of April 13, 1993). According to the evidence of the first instance court maintained by the court below and the evidence duly examined by the court below, the non-indicted person leases the building of this case, which is a warehouse facility use, from the defendant, used it as an office without permission of the authority, and the defendant is sufficiently recognized to have consented to the use of the building as an office by the non-indicted person, and if the facts are the same, the defendant consented to the alteration of the use of the building. Therefore, the court below is justified in the judgment below to the purport that there is no error of law by mistake of facts, such as a mistake of facts.

As pointed out in the theory of lawsuit that there is no sufficient evidence to acknowledge that the above two-offenders consented to the above change of the internal structure of the building (which constitutes a tangible change) or that there was a knowledge of the fact, the act of change of the use under the former Building Act does not necessarily necessarily entail a tangible change, and as such, the above reason does not affect the conclusion of the court below.

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

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

Justices Cho Chang-tae (Presiding Justice)