In a case where a part of a building designated as a business facility is used for a reservation room or a drum room of a wedding hall located on another floor of the same building, whether it can be viewed as a unauthorized change of use to a viewing assembly facility (negative)

The purpose of the wedding hall is to solve excessive demand for traffic, environment, sanitary facilities, etc. and to properly regulate and supervise other administrative regulations and supervision arising from gathering and holding events at a certain time for a certain purpose. Thus, the scope of the wedding hall as a meeting hall is not to refer to all facilities or places related to wedding or incidentally, but to the facilities and places indispensable for regulation and supervision as an assembly facility in connection with the purpose of the wedding hall, which require wedding and assembly facility. The meaning of the wedding hall is limited to only the facilities and places that are indispensable for the purpose of the wedding hall. According to the standards for the facilities of the wedding hall under [Attachment Table 1] of Article 8 [Attachment Table 1] of the Enforcement Decree of the Family Rite Standards Act, it does not necessarily require a reservation room, and it is possible to install the wedding hall at a place other than the building in question, and if it is possible to use the wedding hall without permission from the general customers, it is not possible to use the hall as an unspecified facility for the purpose of the use of the building without permission.

Articles 8(1), 14, and 78(1) of the Building Act

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Jeong-dae

Seoul District Court Decision 95Da713 delivered on September 28, 1995

Supreme Court Decision 96Do745 delivered on July 30, 1996

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

The gist of the grounds for appeal by the Defendant’s defense counsel is that the Defendant’s defense counsel’s defense counsel’s defense room is the first underground floor in Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, 1046-4, the third floor of the 8th floor area above the ground, and the third floor of the 4,912-7 square meters building above the 8th floor area above the 1046-4, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, where Nonindicted Co., Ltd. was operated by the Defendant, and the designation of the use of the buildings is not an incidental facility to the wedding hall, and thus, the owner and the manager of the wedding hall is not a subject to consideration, but a personal factor that the owner and the manager of the wedding hall directly operated by the wedding hall is not a subject of consideration. However, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s defense room was the reservation room and the dice room as a viewing assembly facility under the Building Act, under the premise that it is an office (store) operated by a third party who is not the operator of the wedding hall, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

The summary of the facts charged in this case is that "the defendant is the representative director of the non-indicted corporation, who is the owner of the 1st underground floor and 8th floor area above 4,912.7m2 located in Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, 1046-4, the 1046-4m2, and the 8th floor area above 4,912m2, and without obtaining permission from the competent Gu office, and from January 1, 1992 to December 9, 1994, about 120m2 of the above 3st floor business facilities of the above building within the urban planning district using the 120m2 as the reservation room of the wedding hall, which is the viewing assembly facilities, and changed the purpose of the building by using the 120m2 as the drick room and the drick room." The main issue is whether the above reservation room and the drick room are the original use of the 3th floor of the building, and whether the use was changed without obtaining permission from the competent office.

According to the statement of the defendant at the prosecutor's office and court of the court below, the statement of the status of investigation into the building of Kim Jong-gu, and the copy of the building management ledger, on March 5, 1981, when the defendant completed and completed the building of 1046-4, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, 1046-4, and the building of 8th floor above the ground (hereinafter "the building") on March 5, 1981, he designated the use of 3rd floor of the building as a wedding hall (or a harsh store), 4, and 5th floor of the building in this case as a wedding hall. After the construction of the building in this case, the defendant, after the construction of the building in this case, directly managed 120 square meters of the 3rd floor among the three floors of the building in this case as a wedding hall's reservation room, the reservation room of the above wedding hall, and the 4th floor room in this wedding hall to the new part to be married, can be seen as a wedding hall in accordance with Article 2 (15).

The purpose of the wedding hall is to solve excessive demand for traffic, environment, sanitary facilities, etc. generated by gathering and holding events at a certain time for a certain purpose, and to properly enforce other administrative regulations and supervision. Thus, the scope of the wedding hall as an assembly hall is not to refer to all facilities or places incidental to the wedding and assembly facility, but to regulation and supervision as an assembly facility in connection with the purpose of the wedding hall. It is necessary to conduct wedding, and its meaning is limited to facilities and places indispensable for the wedding hall. According to the standards of the wedding hall under [Attachment Table 1] of Article 8 [Attachment Table 1] of the Enforcement Decree of the Family Ri Standards Act, the facilities of the wedding hall are the waiting room, entrance, corridor, wedding room, toilet, parking facility, other facilities for the wedding hall, which are necessary for the wedding hall, and are not necessarily required for the reservation room, the facilities of the wedding hall and the facilities of the wedding hall are not necessarily required for the rent of the 3rd place to the general public, and as long as possible, they are not necessary for the purpose of the wedding hall.

Therefore, since the facts charged in this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, the court below should have sentenced the defendant not guilty, in spite of the fact that the court below found the defendant guilty, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles of the Building Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and thus, the above appeal

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the judgment is again ruled as follows.

The summary of the facts charged in this case is as mentioned above. As such, the above facts charged do not constitute a crime, the defendant is acquitted pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the judgment against the defendant is publicly announced pursuant to Article 58 (2) of the Criminal Act.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Kim Young-young (Presiding Judge) Stabilization