logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 제주지방법원 2020.01.09 2018노425
건축법위반
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Reasons

1. The mixing plant, which is a facility for manufacturing asphalts, falls under a structure, and the defendant's replacement of mixing plant, such as entries in the facts charged, constitutes an act of construction;

According to the definition provisions of Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act, construction includes the concept of reconstruction, and the defendant's removal of existing mixing plants and construction of new facilities constitutes construction of structures subject to reporting under the Building Act.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that the defendant's replacement of an existing mixed plant is not subject to reporting under the Building Act on the premise that only a new construction or extension of a structure constitutes an act of constructing a new structure, is erroneous, or by misapprehending the legal principles.

2. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion

A. 1) Whether the subject matter of the report falls under the “building” subject to Article 83(1) of the Building Act, Article 118(1)9 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act, and Article 37 subparag. 9 of the Building Ordinance of Jeju Special Self-Governing Province, the lower court is limited to the mixing plant as indicated in the facts charged (hereinafter “mixed plant”).

(2) In light of the type, size, function, etc. of mixing plants, which can be seen by the lower court and the appellate court based on the evidence duly adopted and examined, it is reasonable to view the mixing plant as falling under the structure similar to ready-mixed or petrochemicals facilities prescribed in Article 118(1)9 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act and Article 37 subparag. 9 of the Building Ordinance of Jeju Special Self-Governing Province, as recognized by the lower court. (2) The Defendant asserted to the effect that “the mixing plant is not a structure because it is merely a part of the manufacturing facilities of ready-mixed, so it is difficult to view it as a structure.”

However, the following circumstances revealed by each of the above evidence, and ① structures are ordinarily artificial.

arrow