logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 동부지원 2013.07.08 2013고정325
주차장법위반
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. The Defendant is the owner of a building of 1101 and 1201 above the 2nd underground floor (C building) on the 3rd ground surface in the north-gu, Gyeong-gu, Gyeongbuk-gu, B, and the co-owner of a mechanical parking lot, which is an annexed parking lot of the same building.

The owner and manager of an attached parking lot shall maintain the original functions of the attached parking lot so that users of the relevant facilities may not interfere with the use of the attached parking lot.

Nevertheless, on September 28, 201, the Defendant was judged inappropriate as a result of the regular inspection of the above C-building attached parking lot on September 28, 201, but failed to maintain the original function of the attached parking lot by not later than October 2012 without justifiable grounds.

2. According to the evidence examined by this court, the defendant paid certain management expenses to the owners of the above C building 19, and the management office or the head of the management office may recognize the fact that the owners of the above C building and the attached parking lot are managing the co-ownership of the above building and the attached parking lot. Article 19-4(2) of the Parking Lot Act provides that the owner of the facilities or the person responsible for the management of the attached parking lot must maintain the original function of the attached parking lot. However, even in cases where the owners of the facilities under the above provision are co-ownership of the attached building and the management office of the attached parking lot manage the common part of the condominium building and the attached parking lot, it is against the principle of responsibility under the Constitution and the Criminal Act to impose criminal liability on the owners of the facilities under the above provision, since it cannot be interpreted that the above provision includes the co-ownership of the attached building in such cases.

arrow