A. The meaning of roads under Article 30 of the Building Act

(b) Whether the act of rebuilding and remodeling fences is subject to permission of the head of Si/Gun under Article 4 (1) of the Urban Planning Act;

(c) Whether only the administrative guidance alone can be deemed designated as a road under Article 2 subparagraph 15 (b) of the Building Act;

(d) Whether Article 49 of the Building Act and Article 100 subparagraph 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act apply to the fences attached to buildings;

(a)the roads subject to the construction lines under Article 30 of the Building Act shall mean only the roads under Article 2, subparagraph 15 of the same Act;

B. The act of re-Stockpiling the front wall and fence of a building is an alteration of minor matters not falling under any of the items of new construction, extension, remodeling, relocation, or large-scale repair as stipulated in Article 2(1)1 through 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act. Thus, it may be done without permission or report from the authorities under the proviso of Article 5(4) of the Building Act, and this is not subject to permission from the head of Si/Gun under Article 4(1) of the Urban Planning Act

C. In light of the provisions of Article 64(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act, the fact that administrative agencies have provided administrative guidance so that the width of the road is four meters at each time of permission for construction cannot be deemed to have been designated as a road under Article 2 subparag. 15(b) of the same Act.

D. Article 49 Subparag. 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act does not apply to the provisions on independent retaining walls and fences, etc. for the creation of a building site, which are attached to buildings under Article 2 Subparag. 2 of the same Act and Article 2(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

(a) Articles 30 and 2 subparag. 15 (b) of the Building Act; Article 5(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act; Article 2(1)6 of the Building Act; Article 4(1)/c) of the Urban Planning Act; Article 2 subparag. 15 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act; Article 49 of the Building Act; Article 2 subparag. 2 of the Building Act; Articles 100 subparag. 5 and 2(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act;

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 4 others

Head of Gwanak-gu

Seoul High Court Decision 86Gu524 delivered on February 5, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, since the plaintiff's act of constructing a house on the ground after obtaining a construction permit from the defendant 1984.3.22, the court below determined that the above passage was a road with a width of about 1.6 meters under the Building Act and ordered the plaintiff to remove the building site as 95 centimeters away from the site boundary line so that the plaintiff can secure a construction line under Article 30 of the Building Act as to the above building site at 10,000,000,000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,000,0000,0000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00,00,00.

The issue is that even if a road is less than four meters in width, if the head of a Si/Gun designates a location to be not less than four meters in width at the time of permission for construction, it becomes a road as prescribed in Article 2 subparagraph 15 of the Building Act. However, it is clear that the defendant's designation of a road as prescribed in Article 2 subparagraph 15 (b) of the Building Act is not reasonable since the defendant's designation of a road as long as the administrative guidance was made so that the width of the road is not less than four meters at each time of permission for construction to the owners of the sites on the right and right after the right and right of the road. However, if the head of a Si/Gun intends to designate a road under Article 2 subparagraph 15 (b) of the Building Act, he shall obtain the consent of the interested parties to the road, and if the road is designated, he shall prepare and keep a road register stating the section, extension, and location of the road.

In addition, it is clear that the act of piling up the wall of this case is an act subject to permission from the head of Si/Gun even under Article 4 (1) 2 of the Urban Planning Act, and the height of the wall of this case is more than 2 meters if it is combined with the embankment under the bottom, so it shall be interpreted that a building can be constructed without permission or report under Article 49 of the Building Act and Article 100 subparagraph 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. However, it is reasonable to interpret that the alteration of minor matters of a building which can be done without permission or report under the proviso of Article 5 (4) of the Building Act is not the head of Si/Gun under Article 4 (1) of the Urban Planning Act, and Article 49 of the Building Act and Article 10 subparagraph 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act are the provisions concerning independent retaining walls and fences for building site, and it is clear that there is no room to apply them under the Act in the case of a building attached to the wall of this case like the wall of this case.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee B-soo (Presiding Justice)