The case affirming the judgment of the court below holding that a part of a building, the purpose of which is limited to a dormitory under the Gu Urban Planning Act’s guidelines for urban design, can not be deemed to have been used for any purpose other than a dormitory, only for lease to other company or its employees.

The case affirming the judgment below which held that since the concept of dormitory under the Building Act does not necessarily stipulate that only the students belonging to the owner of the building or employees of the building, and the defendants installed a restaurant in the underground so that they can make joint cooking in accordance with the original legally authorized construction plan, and the individual room 72 of the defendants used for the purpose of lodging, rest, etc. maintain the structure of independent dwelling, it cannot be deemed that part of the building cannot be deemed to have been used for any purpose other than a dormitory on the ground that the defendant company's employees, other than the defendant company's employees, or workers belonging to other companies, have leased part of the building, the purpose of which is limited to a dormitory in accordance with the

Articles 45, 92(1), and 101 of the former Urban Planning Act (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, Act No. 6655, Feb. 4, 2002)

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and one other

Prosecutor

Suwon District Court Decision 2002No3669 delivered on September 30, 2003

All appeals are dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the concept of dormitory under the Building Act does not necessarily provide that only the students or employees belonging to the building owner may use a restaurant in the underground so that the defendants can make a joint cooking as originally lawfully permitted, and that 72 individual rooms used for the purpose of accommodation and rest can maintain an independent residential structure as it is without having an independent residential form, Defendant 1 cannot be deemed to have used a part of the room of the building of this case, which is limited to the purpose of use as a dormitory in accordance with the Gu unit planning guidelines for the district unit planning zone, just because Defendant 1 leased part of the room of the building of this case to other companies or employees belonging to other companies than the defendant company or the other companies, which is limited to the purpose of use as a dormitory for other than a dormitory, and determined that the defendants used a part of the building of this case for other purposes pursuant to Article 92 (1) of the former Urban Planning Act (repealed by Article 2 of Addenda to the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, Act No. 655, Feb. 4, 2002).

The Supreme Court precedents cited in the grounds of appeal are different from the instant case, and it is inappropriate to invoke the instant case.

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

Justices Kim Yong-dam (Presiding Justice)