In the construction of a small-scale building agreed 6:00 square meters, a part of the permission.

It is clear that the building in this case falls short of the size and structure of the building stipulated in Item 5 of the former Building Act (No. 984, Jan. 20, 1962), and it is not a building that requires the permission of the head of Si/Gun. However, if it is not clear whether the building in the urban planning area is located within the urban planning area, it should first be examined and judged whether to grant the permission of the building after considering it.

Article 5 of the former Building Act, Article 4 of the former Urban Planning Act

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al.

The head of Dobong-gu

Seoul High Court Decision 82Gu222 delivered on March 8, 1982

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, in determining whether the building of this case is obligated to remove under the Building Act, the court below acknowledged that the building of this case was an unauthorized building under the name of 12.20 of this year after the non-party constructed and paid the acquisition tax on August 25, 1962, and completed the registration of ownership transfer to the plaintiff on March 23, 1979, and concluded that the building of this case was an unauthorized building under the following facts. In other words, the building of this case cannot be confirmed at present, the building of this case cannot be registered in the house ledger or the basic documents for the registration of the preservation thereof, and the registration of ownership preservation based on the house ledger is a normal procedure, even if the registration of ownership preservation was first made in the case of the building of this case, and the building of this case was registered in the house ledger, and the building of this case was constructed on the national river site, and the building of this case, and the building of this case was not permitted at the time of its construction.

Therefore, according to the records, the building of this case is 50 square meters or more in total floor area and 3 stories or more, and 60 square meters in mentmen and junium 1 and 65 square meters in mentmen and sap, and the competent authorities at the time of construction of the above building can recognize the fact that the building was damaged by Yangju-gun-gun in Gyeonggi-do. Meanwhile, according to Article 5 of the former Building Act (No. 984, Jan. 20, 1962) which was enforced at the time of construction of the building of this case, the general building of this case is 50 square meters or more in total floor area and the building of this case which is 200 square meters or more in total floor area and 200 square meters or more, and the building of this case is 5 square meters or more in total floor area, and the court below should have determined the building permit of this case and other building of this case to be 50 square meters or more in total building area without permission of this case.

Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, we reverse the judgment of the court below and remand the case to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jung-soo (Presiding Justice) and Lee Jong-young's Lee Jong-young