In a case where a registration as a traditional temple is completed under the Preservation of Traditional Buddhist Temples Act, whether or not permission of the competent authorities shall be obtained for the construction of buildings other than those entered in the property list installed at the time of the registration of the temple in accordance with the procedures provided in the Building Act

Article 3 (1) 3 of the Building Act excludes traditional temples under the Preservation of Traditional Temples Act from the scope of application. In comparison with Article 2 subparagraph 1, Article 3, and Article 6 of the Traditional Temple Preservation Act, the traditional temples need to be installed in harmony so that all facilities installed within the boundary of the boundary of the boundary of the boundary of the traditional temple should not be damaged as cultural heritage of the traditional temple, unlike general buildings, as special buildings having historical significance, unlike the construction of the traditional temple, so it is clear that the traditional temple itself and all facilities within the boundary of the boundary of the boundary of the boundary of the traditional temple should not be regulated by the Building Act, but by the Preservation of Traditional Buddhist Temples Act. Thus, if the traditional temple completes registration as a traditional temple under the Preservation of Traditional Buddhist Temples Act, permission for construction of all buildings constituting the elements of the traditional temple within the boundary of the authority of the traditional temple should be obtained from the Minister of Culture and Sports in accordance with the provisions of Article 6 of the same Act, and the remaining building should be constructed and preserved in accordance with the procedure of the Building Act.

Article 3(1)3, Article 8(1), Article 78(1) of the Building Act, Article 2 subparag. 1, Article 3, and Article 6 of the Preservation of Traditional Buddhist Temples Act

Defendant 1 and one other defense counsel Kim-ju

Prosecutor

Chuncheon District Court Decision 94No110 delivered on April 21, 1994

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 3 (1) of the Building Act provides that "this Act shall not apply to buildings falling under any of the following subparagraphs, and subparagraph 3 of the same Article provides that "the traditional temple under the Preservation of Traditional Buddhist Temples Act" shall be one of them, and Article 2 (1) of the Preservation of Traditional Buddhist Temples Act provides that "the term "the traditional temple" means buildings (including interior movable property and real estate) constructed and constructed in order to seal the shape of the Buddhist Buddhist temple that is the object of the Buddhist Buddhist Buddhist Buddhist, such as the Buddhist Buddhist Buddhist, to carry out the Buddhist Buddhist, and to educate the Buddhist, and the term "the traditional temple" shall be defined as "the buildings constructed and constructed in accordance with the provisions of Article 3 and registered in the Ministry of Culture and Sports as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, which have historical significance in Article 3 of the same Act, shall be registered in the Ministry of Culture and Sports in accordance with the procedure as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, and Article 6 of the same Act requires the permission of the Minister of Culture and Sports for the construction,

As above, the reason why the traditional temples under the Preservation of Traditional Buddhist Temples Act are specially excluded from the application of the Korean Traditional Temples Act is compared to the above provisions of the Korean Traditional Temples Preservation Act. Since it is necessary to install in harmony all facilities installed within the boundary of the traditional temple as a cultural heritage of the Korean traditional temple, unlike general buildings, in order to prevent damage to the form of the cultural heritage of the traditional temple, the traditional temple itself and all facilities within the boundary of the temple should not be regulated by the Building Act, but by the Korean Traditional Temple Preservation Act. Therefore, if the traditional temple completed registration as a traditional temple under the Korean Traditional Temple Preservation Act, the construction of all buildings within the boundary of the temple should be permitted by the Minister of Culture and Sports, and each building on the property list installed at the time of the registration of the temple, permission shall not be granted in accordance with the procedures prescribed by the Building Act.

Therefore, based on these opinions, the decision of the court below is justified in holding that Article 8 (1) of the Building Act and Article 78 (1) of the same Act, which are the penal provisions, do not apply to the acts of the defendants, who are the chief knowledge of traditional temples registered under the Preservation of Traditional Buddhist Temples Act, as well as to the acts of newly constructing or expanding the restaurants and residential buildings of the believers within the boundaries of each temple, are not applicable to the construction permission, and there is no error as pointed out in the grounds of appeal. The grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.

Therefore, all appeals against the Defendants are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)