Scope of change of use under the Building Act

The alteration of use under Article 48 of the Building Act shall include the use for other purposes as stipulated in each subparagraph of the attached Table of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and the alteration does not necessarily entail a tangible alteration.

Article 48 of the Building Act, Article 2(1)12, and Article 99(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act

Supreme Court Decision 86Do1865 Delivered on July 8, 1986

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Daegu District Court Decision 88No1177 delivered on December 1, 1988

All appeals are dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the evidence in the judgment of the court of first instance, the defendants' use of a building consisting of a store, office, or neighborhood living facility without permission from the authority of the court of first instance is recognized, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence as pointed out in the judgment of the court below.

In addition, the alteration of use as stipulated in Article 48 of the Building Act includes the use for other purposes as stipulated in the attached Table of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act and the modification does not necessarily entail a tangible alteration (see Supreme Court Decision 86Do1865 delivered on July 8, 1986). The application of Article 48 of the Building Act and Article 49 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act to this case by the court below is just and there is no error of law as pointed out.

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

Justices Ansan-man (Presiding Justice)