Whether continuing use of a building after changing its use constitutes a violation of Article 26 (1) of the Building Act

Article 7-3 (1) of the former Building Act (amended by Act No. 4381 of May 31, 1991) provides that "the owner or manager of a building shall always maintain and manage the site, structure, building equipment, form, and use of the building in compliance with this Act, orders or dispositions under this Act, and other requirements prescribed by related Acts and subordinate statutes." Article 26 (1) of the amended Act provides that "the owner or manager of a building shall always maintain and manage the building, site, and building facilities in compliance with the standards prescribed by this Act or the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, and the order or disposition under this Act and the related Acts and subordinate statutes." However, the purpose of "building" is not limited to its structure, form, and use, and it is to maintain and manage the overall condition of the building itself at the time of completion, and therefore, the object of general maintenance and management obligations does not change from the former Building Act, and the obligation to maintain and manage the building after the revision of the amended Building Act shall be deemed to have been amended in accordance with Article 8 (1) and Article 6 (2) of the amended Building Act.

Articles 26(1) and 79 subparag. 4 of the Building Act, Article 7-3(1) of the former Building Act (wholly amended by Act No. 4381 of May 31, 1991)

Defendant

Defendant

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 94No2576 delivered on October 25, 1994

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s above act is in violation of Article 79 subparag. 4 and Article 26(1) of the Building Act (hereinafter “Act”) after comprehensively considering the evidence presented in its judgment and recognizing the fact that, from July 18, 1992 to May 30, 193, the Defendant: (a) destroyed all bearing walls of 81.98 square meters of an apartment owned by a house with the purpose, structure, form, and building equipment; and (b) destroyed all the bearing walls of 1,00 square meters of the apartment owned by the building; and (c) divided them into five areas and leased them to the office.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the fact finding by the court below is justified, and there is no error in violation of the rules of evidence such as finding facts without any evidence. The grounds for appeal pointing this out are not acceptable

3. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

Article 26 (1) of the Act provides that "the owner or manager of a building shall always maintain and manage the building, site and building equipment in compliance with the standards prescribed by this Act or this Act." On the other hand, Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the Act provides that "any building" means a structure fixed on the land, which has a roof and columns or walls. It is clear that a building composed of several apartment buildings is "the building", and individual apartment buildings separated from one building are also "the building". Thus, the defendant, who is the owner of the apartment of this case, has no obligation to maintain and manage the apartment of this case and its building equipment at all times in compliance with the above provisions of Article 26 (1) of the Act and subordinate statutes, and there is no reason to regard "the construction permit of this case and building equipment of this case to be in compliance with the standards prescribed by the Act and subordinate statutes" as "the construction permit of this case and building equipment of this case to be in accordance with the provisions of Article 26 (1) of the Act and subordinate statutes before it is amended."

4. Therefore, the defendant's appeal shall be dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)