Whether the “entertainment room” designated for the purpose of use in a building permit for a tourist hotel building in a general and quasi-residential area under the Urban Planning Act refers to a slot machine business (negative)

If a hotel building is located in a general residential area or a quasi-residential area and can not be a building permit for a business place which is an amusement facility, the use of part of the building shall be designated as a "entertainment room" and the building permit to change the purpose of the building was granted, even if the "entertainment room" designated for the purpose of use is not considered to have complied with the "entertainment facility" as prescribed in attached Table 2 [Attachment Table 2] paragraph (8) and [Attachment Table 3] paragraph (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Building Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 13655 of May 30, 192), and it is reasonable to view that the "entertainment facility" as prescribed in Article 14 (5) 5 of the [Attachment Table 3] of the former Enforcement Decree of the Building Act refers to a place of abandonment as

Article 3 of the Act on the Control of Speculative Acts, Etc. (wholly amended by Act No. 4339 of March 8, 1991); Article 66 (1) 3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Building Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 1365 of May 30, 192); Article 66 (1) 5 of the attached Table 3 and Article 2 (1) 12 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Building Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Jae-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al.

The Commissioner of the Local Police Agency

Seoul High Court Decision 92Gu1751 delivered on July 8, 1992

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The defendant's grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to Article 3 of the Act on the Regulation of Speculative Acts, Etc. (wholly amended by the Act on the Regulation of Speculative Acts, Etc., effective from September 8, 191), the lower court determined that the Plaintiff’s construction permission was unlawful for the purpose of using 81.6 square meters of the underground floor of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and that the period of permission was 3 years from February 9, 1989 to February 8, 192 by installing 40 lots of slot machines, and that the above construction permission was not valid for the purpose of using the 6th anniversary of the above construction permission of the above 6th anniversary of the fact that the Plaintiff’s use of the above 6th anniversary of the above construction permission of the above 6th anniversary of the construction permission of the above 3th anniversary of the construction permission of the above 6th anniversary of the construction permission of the above 6th anniversary of the construction permission of the above 6th anniversary of the construction permission of the above 6th anniversary of the construction permission of the above 1st residential area.

2. However, according to Article 6 subparag. 3 of the Regulation of Speculative Acts, etc. Act, Article 32(1) of the Building Act prior to the amendment by Act No. 4381 of May 31, 191, Article 66(1)2 and 3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Building Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13655 of May 30, 192) and Article 66(1) subparag. 2 and 3 [Attachment 2], Article 2 subparag. 12 and [Attachment 3] of the former Enforcement Decree of the Building Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1365 of May 30, 192), the court below also determined that "No. 2 of the Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Ordinance on the Regulation of Speculative Acts, etc." can be viewed as "No. 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Regulation of Speculative Acts, Etc." and "No. 1 of the Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Ordinance on the Permission of Amusement Facilities."

Nevertheless, the court below held that the "entertainment room" designated by the head of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government for the purpose of changing the use of a part of the above hotel building was "Ordinance" [Attachment] No. 14 Item 5 of Article 14 (14). Thus, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the Building Act, and it is clear that such illegality has affected the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, there is a reason to point this out.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon-young (Presiding Justice)