The meaning of the alteration of use of a building under the Building Act

An act of changing the purpose of use, which is deemed a construction of a building under the Building Act, includes not only the actor who alters the use for other purposes, but also the act of using it for other purposes, and it 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

Prosecutor

Busan District Court Decision 86No1938 delivered on April 23, 1987

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan District Court Panel Division.

The prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.

It is a party member's view that the alteration of the purpose of use to be a construction of a building under the Building Act includes not only the alteration of the purpose of use between the purposes prescribed in each subparagraph of the annexed Table of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act, but also the use for other purposes, and it does not necessarily necessarily entail a tangible alteration (the party member's opinion, 85Do1865, Jul. 8, 1986).

However, the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below at around July 1982, 1982, which held that the use of the building, which is deemed a neighborhood living facility, was the first floor above the ground level 54.76 square meters above the ground surface of the 1st floor above the 544.76 square meters above that of the building of reinforced concrete sloping roof, which is the first floor above the ground surface of the 1st floor above that of the 201.16 square meters above that of the building of reinforced concrete sloping roof, the former owner, and changed the use of the building to a amusement facility equipped with dancing facilities and studio 4, etc. and continued to conduct the same business from that time, and established the fact that the defendant acquired it around October 1983 and continued to conduct the same business from that time, and then did not include the act of acquiring the right to change the use of the building, and does not constitute the act of changing the use of the building under the Building Act.

However, such determination by the lower court cannot be deemed to have committed an unlawful act that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the alteration of use of a building under the Building Act, and it is justifiable to have pointed out the appeal.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yellow-ray (Presiding Justice)