(영문) 제주지방법원 2016.6.24.선고 2014가단14596 판결

1. The Plaintiff, the Defendant Company B, the 5,992,069 won for Defendant C, the 2,644,800 won for Defendant D’s shares, and the 15% interest per annum for each of the above amounts from January 8, 2016 to the day of full payment.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

Purport of claim

The same shall apply to the order.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a management body established by all sectional owners of the building in Jeju (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”) based on Article 23 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter referred to as the “Aggregate Buildings Act”). The main contents of the Plaintiff’s management body regulations (hereinafter referred to as the “instant regulations”) are as shown in the attached Table.

B. At the time of the filing of the instant lawsuit, Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant B”) divided ownership of 305, 306, 315, 317, 318, 319, 321, 328, 337, 338, 341, 346, 347, 417, 418, 419, 419, 419, 425, 426, 437, 438, 451, 452, 516, 512, 318, 319, 320, 350, 325, 205, 316, 250, 345, 250, 2516, 305, 365, 2516, 365, 250.

C. Defendant B paid KRW 105,698,140 to the Plaintiff in June 2015, when the instant lawsuit was pending, around January 2015, Defendant C appropriated KRW 6,782,810 out of the said money as management expenses from May 2014 to January 2015, and demanded that Defendant C appropriate the remainder of KRW 98,915,330 ( KRW 105,698,140 - 6,782,810) in advance, from January 2015, Defendant B appropriated the remainder of KRW 105,698,140 for the total amount of management expenses until January 2015. The Plaintiff accepted this and appropriated it as it is.

D. Meanwhile, as of November 23, 2015, Defendant D paid KRW 20,902,066 among the instant building; KRW 506,507, and KRW 18,786,556 among the instant building; and KRW 8,283,556 among the sectional owners under subparagraph 522, Defendant D paid KRW 45,327,027 to the Plaintiff on December 16, 2015; KRW 18,786,205 out of the said money; KRW 8,283,556 in preference to F’s management expenses; KRW 18,257,266 in consideration of F’s management expenses; KRW 18,275,277; KRW 18,288,585; and KRW 205 in consideration of the remainder of F’s management expenses.

E. As of November 23, 2015, management expenses not paid by the Defendants as of January 23, 2015 are Defendant B 137,640,430 won [i.e., management expenses not paid until January 2015 + KRW 6,782,810 [i.e., management expenses not paid until January 2015 [i.e., KRW 105,698,140 - KRW 98,915,330] + Management expenses 130,857,803), Defendant C5,92,069 won from February 2015 to October 2015 [i.e., unpaid management expenses from February 2015 to October 2015], Defendant D 2,64,800 won (=20,06 won - 18,257,266).

F. Meanwhile, during the instant lawsuit pending, it is confirmed that Defendant B partitioned the three floors, 320, 329, 330, 333, 334, 335, 345, 402, 403 (round December 2014), 429-2, 430, 432, 439 ( around June 2014), 440, 442, 512, 516-7, and 516-11 of the instant building, or acquired sectional ownership.

[Reasons for Recognition] A’s without dispute, Gap’s evidence 1, Gap’s evidence 2-1 through 21, Gap’s evidence 3-1, 2, Gap’s evidence 4, Gap’s evidence 5-1, 2, Gap’s evidence 6-1 through 3, Gap’s evidence 7, Gap’s evidence 8, Gap’s evidence 9-1 through 22, Gap’s evidence 10-1, 2, Gap’s evidence 11, 12-1, 12-2, Gap’s evidence 13-1, 14, Gap’s evidence 15-1 through 36, Gap’s evidence 16-1, 2, Gap’s evidence 17-1 through 3, Gap’s evidence 18-1, 19-3, and the purport of the whole pleadings, as a whole the pleadings, and the purport of the pleadings as a whole.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

According to the above facts, the Defendants are obligated to pay damages for delay at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from January 8, 2016 to the date of delivery to the Defendants, as the management expenses that are not yet paid to the Plaintiff as of November 23, 2015, Defendant B is the KRW 137,640,430, Defendant C is the KRW 5,92,069, Defendant D2,644, Defendant D2,64,80, and each of the above amounts.

3. Determination as to the defendants' assertion

A. Summary of the defendants' assertion

Among the buildings in this case, the part of the building owned by the Defendants (hereinafter referred to as the "sales facility in this case") is a specific fire-fighting object that must install, maintain, and maintain fire-fighting facilities prescribed by the above Act pursuant to the Installation, Maintenance, and Safety Control of Fire-Fighting Systems Act (amended by Act No. 13062, Jan. 20, 2015; hereinafter referred to as the "Fire-Fighting Systems Act"). However, the Plaintiff did not install a fire-fighting system even though it had been "non-performance of 3 and 4 floors of the building in this case" under subparagraph 1 of Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Fire-Fighting Facilities Act because the Defendants were unable to move into the sales facility in this case due to unstable human and physical damage caused by a fire. The Defendants requested the Plaintiff to install the fire-fighting system, but the Plaintiff did not have any obligation to use the fire-fighting facility in this case, which is the subject of the Plaintiff's use and profit-making.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Facts of recognition

1) The instant building is a large-scale commercial building that is located along with large-scale discount stores and store facilities. On December 18, 2013, there was a press report stating that large-scale buildings are vulnerable to fire-fighting systems, and it was pointed out that the instant building in the said press report prevents windows even if there is no smoke-proof facilities.

2) As a result, the Jeju Fire-Fighting Unit ordered G to take corrective measures until February 27, 2014 on the following matters based on Article 5(1) of the Fire-Fighting Facilities Act, based on which a special fire safety inspection on the instant building was conducted, and as a result, ordered G to take corrective measures by December 30, 2013:

A person shall be appointed.

3) According to the result of the fact-finding on Jeju Special Self-Governing Province Special Self-Governing Province Special Self-Governing Province Special Self-Governing Province Special Self-Governing Province Special Self-Governing Province Special Self-Governing Province, the address room ordered corrective measures as above, and issued an order to take additional measures to shop owners and shop occupants on January 22, 2014. Accordingly, the merchants' association applied for an extension of the deadline for corrective measures on February 26, 2014, extended the deadline to June 20, 2014.

Since June 16, 2014 to June 17, 2014, the Jeju Fire Prevention Center judged that the supplementation under the corrective order has been completed as a result of the on-site inspection of the completion of the measure against the above order.

The Jeju Fire Prevention Center, especially with respect to the third and fourth floors of the instant building, individually examined the location and area of windows on each floor through on-site verification as above, and calculated the floor area and the opening area of each floor except for the windows that may be at issue on June 18, 2014. The details and results of the measures indicated by the Jeju Fire Prevention Team in relation to this part are as follows.

- The size of each floor and the third floor: 45m of 85m in 4599 (to be 65m in 2903.65m in 296.20m in 1696.20m in 4: 4599 (to be 65m in 2903.65m in 290, parking lot 1696.20m in 169)- the percent of the windowless floor: The percent of the 85m in 4599 and 30m in 153m in 153.3m in 153.4m in 153. 8m in 154m in 153.

The recommendation of the National Fire-Fighting Safety Headquarters to provide administrative guidance and fire-fighting headquarters with more than 1/30 of the floor area of the store so that the new openings can not be re-closed and additional openings available for merchants' meetings: (a) to provide opinions on amendments to the Acts and subordinate statutes at the National Emergency Management Agency, such as ensuring that the new openings of the store are secured by more than 1/30 of the floor area of the store; (b) to conduct on-site verification as to whether the new openings are re-closed once a week; and (c) to conduct education for the person concerned at issue immediately after the occurrence of the problem: (c) to include three-story parking lots and parking lots with a view to installation of a new galle-type parking lot: It is possible to enter the parking lot and parking lot with a view to not more than 2 meters of the existing entrance, but more than 1/2 meters of the new door, including the new door-to-door parking lot and the new door-to-door parking lot with the largest width size of the entrance.

Area

It is impossible to deny this at the present point of time at which trust was created, and the part of the glass hold cannot be deemed lawful as a whole. Unless otherwise, the removal of all the show halls from time to time of the completion of the removal, thereby becoming a windowless floor from time of the completion of the construction.- Other three-story 6, and five-story 5, respectively, shall not be included in the opening of the opening.

[Based on Recognition] In the absence of dispute, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 3, Eul evidence Nos. 2-1 to 9, Eul evidence Nos. 5, Eul evidence Nos. 6, and the result of the on-site inspection by this court, the fact inquiry of Jeju Special Self-Governing Province Governor Nos. 1 to 6, the purport of the whole pleadings, as a result of the fact inquiry by this court,

D. Determination

1) Article 10 of the Constitution provides that “All citizens shall have dignity and value as human beings and have the right to pursue happiness.” Article 35 of the Constitution provides that “All citizens shall have the right to live in a healthy and pleasant environment.” The above provisions of the Constitution stipulate that “All citizens shall have the right to live in a healthy and pleasant environment.” The right to the safety of life and body is a fundamental right that serves as the foundation of human dignity and value, and all citizens shall have the right to live in a safe environment according to the above provisions.

2) The fundamental rights under the Constitution are primarily a defensive right to protect an individual’s free sphere from a violation of the public authority, but on the other hand, an objective decision of the Constitution has an effect on all legal areas, including private law. As such, private legal relations between private persons should also be governed in compliance with the provisions on fundamental rights under the Constitution (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2008Da38288, Apr. 22, 2010). However, considering the nature of the fundamental rights rules, except for exceptional cases directly applicable to private law relations, the determination of the fundamental rights has established the contents of Articles 2, 103, 750, and 751 of the Civil Act, which provide for the general principles under the private law and indirectly affect private law relations, the safety risks of fire-fighting and safety violations the Defendants’ right to live in the safe environment (business) and the Defendants’ right to refuse to pay management fees may also be increased for the reason that there is a considerable increase in the number of risk factors in the fire-fighting safety management.

3) However, Article 10(1) of the Aggregate Buildings Act provides that the section for common use belongs to the co-ownership of all sectional owners, and Article 11 provides that each co-owner may use the section for common use according to its intended purpose, but Article 17 provides that each co-owner bears the management costs and other obligations of the section for common use according to the ratio of his/her share unless otherwise stipulated by the regulations. As long as all sectional owners jointly own the section for common use and bear the management costs, if the sectional owner of the aggregate building fails to pay the management expenses for the reason of the risk to fire-fighting safety, it may not be returned to the other sectional owners. This is likely to prejudice the freedom of business

In light of the fact that the right to refuse the payment of management expenses may conflict with the right of the sectional owner who has the right to refuse the payment of management expenses on the ground of the danger in the fire safety, the expenses for installing fire-fighting equipment, such as smoke-resistant equipment, etc., can be discharged from the management expenses or the long-term repair appropriations imposed along with the management expenses. According to Article 6 subparagraph 6 of the Rules of this case, in consideration of the fact that the sectional owner has the duty to bear the management expenses, etc. necessary for the maintenance and management of the building, in addition, in order to reduce the payment of management expenses on the ground of the risk in the fire safety, there is insufficient abstract risk or concern that if a fire occurs, it would harm the safety of life and body of the sectional owner, and such risk should be specified and directly confirmed. Moreover, even if the sectional owner pays the management expenses, there is a clear ground that the management entity such as the management body would not remove the risk in the fire safety because of the refusal of the installation

4) We examine the instant case based on such interpretation. The circumstances revealed through which evidence Nos. 3-1 through 9 of evidence Nos. 3-1 through 4-12 of evidence Nos. 4 and the overall purport of the pleadings are as follows.

1. ① After media reports on the fire-fighting systems of the instant building, Jeju Fire-Fighting System was conducted on the basis of Article 4 of the Fire-Fighting System Act, and as a result, it was acknowledged that there was an order to take measures with respect to the matters pointed out in the ten points of the Act. Of the measures, the issues of the third and fourth floors of the instant building, which the Defendants asserted to be most serious as dangerous factors in fire-fighting safety, include the issues of the third and

② Jeju Fire-Fighting Force determined that all complementary measures for the above order were completed through on-site inspection. In particular, Jeju Fire-Fighting Force determined that the third and fourth floors of the instant building meet the standards under the Fire-Fighting System Act, as a result of individually investigating the location and area of windows on each floor by on-site verification through on-site verification related to whether the third and fourth floors of the instant building are windowless floors, and calculating the floor area of each floor and the floor area of the opening, excluding the windowless parts having the potential of the problem.

Examining the process leading up to the above determination, Jeju Fire Captain investigated all openings, such as windows, etc. on the third and fourth floors of the building of this company, and judged whether the area is not more than 1/30 of the floor area of the fire-fighting facilities Act, and whether the area is not more than 1/30 of the floor area. In addition, Jeju Fire Captain clearly specifies the location and area of the windows, except for the calculation of the opening area, and clearly specifies the reasons for exclusion. In addition, there are no other circumstances to deem that the result of the investigation of the Jeju Fire Station is illegal or arbitrary.

③ The Defendants pointed out that the windows of a building outer wall cannot play a role as an opening part because they are prevented from displaying the door of the store, as a result of the examination of the smallest opening part in the second floor of the third floor in the store display room, the Defendants determined that all the requirements under each item of Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Fire-Fighting Facilities Act are satisfied and present the grounds therefor. In addition, even in the mountain of the opening area of the opening area, the Defendants avoid unreasonable entry of the total outer wall area into the whole opening area.

④ As to this result, the Defendants asserted that the above examination result was based on the premise that the door door of the parking lot connected to the store is included in the opening room. The instant building is divided into the sales room and the parking lot, and that the opening part in the parking lot cannot function as a parking lot or out-of-the-door, and thus, the opening part in the parking lot cannot function as a part of the parking lot. However, as a result of the above examination, it seems to be problematic that the above examination calculated the total floor area by including the floor area of the parking lot in the area of the parking lot, and calculated the ratio of the opening area and the opening area of the parking lot by calculating the total floor area, and does not violate the evaluation method of the windowless story as stipulated under the Enforcement Decree of the Fire-Fighting Facilities Act. If the floor area of the parking lot is considered as the total floor area and the opening area of the whole part is considered as the opening area included in the opening area of the parking lot, it can be viewed as unlawful calculation method by the Defendants, but it is difficult to view that the entire opening area is particularly unlawful.

The Defendants’ assertion can be understood to the purport that, excluding the floor area and the opening area of the parking lot, it is necessary to determine whether the parking lot is a windowless floor solely on the basis of the floor area and the opening area of the parking lot. However, the Enforcement Decree of the Fire-Fighting Systems Act does not provide for the exclusion of the parking lot part in assessing whether the parking lot is a windowless floor. Moreover, there is no special reason to separate the parking lot and the parking lot from the parking lot unless there is any ground to deem that there is a difference between the risks of fire between the parking lot and the parking lot (the purport that there is no special reason to distinguish the parking lot part from the parking lot part as a fire is likely to occur). Therefore, it cannot be deemed unlawful to determine whether the parking lot

(5) As alleged by the Defendants, there are reasons for excluding parking lot parts. Even if there are no grounds for exclusion from the current Fire-Fighting System Act and other relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, as seen earlier. Furthermore, even if this is deemed legislative deficiencies, there is no evidence suggesting the National Emergency Management Agency to present its opinion on amendment of the Acts and subordinate statutes, such as requiring the person in charge of safety guidance to secure the opening section of at least 1/30 of the floor area of the sales floor area (the same is recognized as above), and there is no evidence suggesting that the risk was embodied in the present situation.

(6) Furthermore, even if the instant building violates the Fire-Fighting Facilities Act and its Enforcement Decree, as alleged by the Defendants, the Fire-Fighting Facilities Act is an administrative law aimed at contributing to the installation and maintenance of fire-fighting systems, etc. and the promotion of public safety and welfare by prescribing necessary matters concerning the safety management of fire-fighting objects in order to protect the lives, bodies and property of the people from fire, disaster, and out-of-the-counter emergency situations. In cases of violations of administrative laws and regulations, the imposition of administrative sanctions on such violations is separate, and it does not necessarily lead to a judicial right under which the Defendants may refuse management fees on the ground of a violation of administrative laws and regulations.

7) The Defendants asserted that the Defendants could not engage in a field business because they are likely to pose risks to fire safety. However, as seen earlier, the Defendants owned a large number of sectional ownership of the instant building, and Defendant B acquired a large number of sectional ownership ownership from March 2015 to June 200 (Defendant B acquired ownership of the instant building on the following grounds: (i) Nos. 320, 329, 333, 345, 402, 429-2, 430, 432, 440, 442, 516-7, 516-11, and 516-11). In light of such attitude of the Defendants in the instant lawsuit, it is doubtful that the Defendants, even if having acquired the instant building’s property risk, may not be said to have any objective and reliableness of the instant building.

8) In addition, the payment of management expenses must be premised on the installation of fire-fighting systems required by the Defendants, or the resolution of the problem of the windowless layer. However, the Defendants pointed out the violation of safety standards under the snow-fighting law in the instant lawsuit, and did not pay management expenses, and did not make efforts to install fire-fighting systems or resolve the problem of the windowless layer (the instant court presented necessary measures to the Defendant to meet the list of smoke-proof facilities and fire-fighting system standards necessary for the Defendant, and provided first priority measures to install smoke-proof facilities or fire-fighting systems after paying management expenses. However, the Defendants did not present the aforementioned list or necessary measures.)

① Meanwhile, according to the meeting minutes of the Plaintiff managing body in 2014, the Defendants appears to have sufficiently recognized the risks associated with the fire safety of the instant building that the Defendants pointed out. In order to solve these problems, the method of installing smoke equipment or opening the opening of the opening or opening of the opening of the opening of the instant building is discussed. In light of the foregoing, it would be possible to fully resolve the risks associated with the fire safety by installing necessary smoke equipment or maintaining the opening of the opening in line with the fire-fighting system.

5) In full view of the above circumstances, the right to safely live is an important fundamental right derived from the Constitution of the Republic of Korea, and the issue of safety in our society is the largest. However, the above reasons alleged by the Defendants were confirmed specifically and directly in light of the structure of the instant building and fire-fighting systems, etc. It is difficult to deem that the risks in fire safety were verified in light of the current state of the structure and fire-fighting systems, etc. of the instant building. Moreover, even if the Defendants paid management expenses, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Plaintiff’s leaving the instant building alone against the fire-fighting standard is an unlawful obstruction of use (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da3598, Jun. 29, 2006).

6) Ultimately, the Defendants cannot refuse to pay management expenses to the Plaintiff. The Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

4. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted for the reasons and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges

Notarial decoration;

Site of separate sheet

Relevant statutes

▣ 구 소방시설 설치 · 유지 및 안전관리에 관한 법률(2015.1. 20. 법률 제13062호로 화재예방, 소방시설 설치 · 유지 및 안전관리에 관한 법률로 개정되기 전의 것 )

Article 2 (Definitions)

(1) The terms used in this Act shall be defined as follows:

3. The term "specific fire-fighting object" means a fire-fighting object prescribed by Presidential Decree for which fire-fighting systems shall be installed;

means that.

Article 9 (Maintenance, Management, etc. of Fire-Fighting Systems Installed in Specific Fire-Fighting Objects)

(1) An interested person of a specific fire-fighting object shall size, purpose and use thereof, as prescribed by Presidential Decree.

Fire-fighting systems to be equipped in consideration of accommodation number, etc. shall be determined and announced by the Minister of Public Safety

Installation, maintenance, and management in accordance with the re-safety standards.

(3) Function and nature of a fire-fighting system in maintaining and managing the fire-fighting system pursuant to paragraph (1).

No act of closing (including locking; hereinafter the same shall apply) or blocking that may interfere with the function shall be prohibited;

Provided, That the closure for inspection and maintenance of fire-fighting systems may be prevented.

Article 10 (Maintenance and Management of Escape Facilities, Fire-Fighting Partitions and Fire-Fighting Facilities)

(1) An interested person of a specific fire-fighting object shall install escape facilities and fire partitions under Article 49 of the Building Act and the same division of fire-fighting objects.

Fire walls, interior finishing materials, etc. (hereinafter referred to as "fire prevention facilities") under Articles 50 through 53 of the Act;

shall not engage in any of the following conduct with respect to such conduct:

1. Closing or destroying escape facilities, fire compartments and fire prevention facilities;

2. Piling up articles or installing obstacles around escape facilities, fire zones and fire prevention facilities;

3. Obstacles to the use of escape facilities, fire compartments and fire prevention facilities or lawsuits under Article 16 of the Framework Act on Fire Services;

Acts that interfere with protection activities;

4. Changing escape facilities, fire compartments and fire prevention facilities.

(2) Where an interested person of a specific fire-fighting object commits an act referred to in paragraph (1).

An order to take measures necessary for the maintenance and management of escape facilities, fire-fighting zones and fire-fighting facilities may be issued.

▣ 소방시설 설치 · 유지 및 안전관리에 관한 법률 시행령

Article 2 (Definitions)

The terms used in this Decree shall be defined as follows:

1. The term "non-wind layer" means a opening which meets all the requirements of the following items among the above-ground floors (to be mined from a building):

Myeongs, entrances, and other similar objects made for ventilation, ventilation, access, etc.

The total area of the register shall be the floor area of the relevant floor (the area calculated pursuant to Article 119 (1) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act);

(b) Floors below 1/30 of the board of directors (referring to the board of directors; hereafter the same shall apply);

(a) The size shall be the size that makes it possible to connect a source of not less than 50 centimeters in diameter;

(d) Infants or other obstacles shall not be installed to ensure easy evacuation from the building in case of fire;

n. must do so

(e) It shall be easily incidental or inside and outside;

Site of separate sheet

H Rules of management organization

Article 6 (Rights and Duties of Sectional Owners)

A sectional owner has the following rights and duties:

6. Liability to bear management expenses, etc. necessary for maintaining and managing buildings;

8. Relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the rules of management body, management regulations, and matters for resolution of the assembly and representative committee related to building management.

duty to faithfully comply with such duty.

Article 53 (Contents of Management Expenses)

The details of management expenses shall be as follows:

1. Direct expenses:

Expenses for electricity, gas, water supply and sewerage heating, mutual assistance, etc. directly used by sectional owners, etc., and taxes and public charges;

It is possible to distinguish each sectional owner, such as building fire insurance premiums, traffic congestion charges, public facility usage fees, etc.

All Costs

2. Common expenses:

(1) Electricity, water supply and sewerage systems, heating and cooling, mutual assistance, cleaning, cleaning, security, guidance, broadcasting, safety management, welfare, etc. for common areas.

all costs required to do so

(2) Expenses incurred in the repair, remodeling, restoration, removal of the section for common use, and the operation, check, repair, maintenance, etc. of the facilities.

(3) Expenses incurred in managing managing bodies:

(4) Fees for entrustment of building management to general management expenses and management service providers.

(5) All other expenses for the management of the section for common use.

Article 54 (Calculation, Imposition, and Collection Method of Management Expenses)

Management expenses shall be calculated and notified by the manager as the actual expense settlement system according to the following standards and methods, and the sectional owners, etc. shall pay the management expenses to be borne each month according to the method of payment determined by the manager:

1. Direct expenses:

Of the expenses referred to in paragraph (1) of Article 53, the measurable part shall be based on the inspection of measuring instruments and shall not be measurable.

Sector shall be calculated in accordance with the standards separately prescribed in the management regulations.

2. Common expenses:

The expenses referred to in the subparagraphs of Article 53 (2) shall be calculated by dividing the expenses in the subparagraphs of Article 53 at the ratio of the fixed sale area of a sectional owner, etc.

1. A custodian shall change the structure of a building exceeding the scope of general management with respect to the common part, and the characteristics of the facilities;

A long-term repair plan shall be formulated in preparation for repair, replacement and repair of major facilities, and other matters.

2. Each sectional owner, etc. shall pay special repair reserve funds under the long-term repair plan monthly to the manager;

must be accumulated.

3. The implementation plan for the method of accumulating the special repair reserve, the monthly payment, the procedure and method of use by the manager.

Written Decision shall be made through a resolution of the Representative Committee.

참조조문

-건축법 제49조

-건축법 시행령 제119조 제1항 제3호