(a) The case which judged that the building cannot be constructed within a general residential area falls under the multi-user house;

(b) The case holding that underground floors exposed to the ground violate the Building Act.

A. If more than 50 publicly notified preparings reside in the building of this case by using a common restaurant installed on the underground floor while using their rooms as bedrooms, etc., it shall be deemed that the building of this case constitutes multiple houses with a structure in which many students, employees, etc. can reside for a long time.

B. In the construction of the instant building by the owner of the building, the height of the floor of the building is 280 centimeters, but the north, which is the front side of the building, obtained a building permit for exposing 90 centimeters from the surface of the road to the ground. In violation of this, if the building was constructed an underground floor exposed to the ground level of about 150 centimeters from the surface of the north side of the road, it cannot be viewed as an underground floor under Article 2 subparagraph 5 of the Building Act.

(a) Article 32(1) of the Building Act, Article 66(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act, / or Article 2 subparagraph 5 of the Building Act;

Plaintiff

Head of Gwanak-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City

Seoul High Court Decision 88Gu10239 Decided July 5, 1989

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, on April 16, 1988, the court below found that the plaintiff's ground in this case from the defendant on the ground of the first floor, the third floor living facilities with the ground, and the building permit, the front and rear floor, which started on the construction work, shall be tending to prevent the plaintiff's family members from living, and the 1,2, and the third floor shall be able to live, and the 15th floor and the 16th floor each with 16th floor on the 15th floor and 3rd floor, respectively, shall be 47 and the 16th floor each with 16th floor, respectively, shall be constructed in the 1,2, and the 1,3rd floor shall be installed in the 2nd floor and the 1,2, and the 3rd floor shall be installed in the 3rd floor and the 1,2, and the 1,23th floor of the building in this case shall not be established separately among the above 1, and the 2nd floors installed in the building.

However, according to Article 32 (1) of the Building Act and Article 66 (1) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, multiple houses within a general residential area shall not be constructed except for the area designated and publicly announced by the head of the Si/Gun as being not impeding urban planning. Article 2 (1) 2 of the Addenda (Classification of the Use of Buildings) of the same Enforcement Decree classify the houses with the structure in which many students, employees, etc. can reside for a long time as multiple houses from among detached houses. The above decision of the court below alone is that it can not be confirmed that the preparation students, etc., occupy the 47 exclusive residential areas and reside for a long time, but if the preparation candidates, etc., 50 in the original city use their rooms as bedrooms and reside in the common restaurant installed on the underground floor, if they use the common restaurant installed on the underground floor (the fact that meals are used as common restaurants installed on the underground floor).

Therefore, the court below should determine whether the building of this case is multi-family housing by examining how the above-mentioned persons are using the above reading as the preparatory place for the examination.

The court below did not examine specifically what the above building is used for the actual purpose, but did not install kitchens in the above building or install facilities so that many households can live. Thus, it is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to multi-family housing and incomplete deliberation. Therefore, the argument that points this out is reasonable.

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below recognized the facts of the judgment as to the height of the building of this case at Won-si, and found the floor of this case to be exposed about about about 150 centimeters from the north side road, and about 60 centimeters above the contents of the building permit above the ground. However, if the site of this case was at the end of the front side of the building due to the relation which is a slope land, the ground floor of the building of this case was exposed about 150 centimeters away from the road, and even if the site of this case was not exposed to the ground outside about about 27 centti, it cannot be viewed as a violation of the construction related Acts and subordinate statutes, since the ground floor of this case was exposed about 150 centimeters, and the height of the entire building from the surface of the road to the roof of the building of this case was less than 8 meters and less than 10 meters permitted to be exposed to the ground, that is, even if the ground floor of this case was exposed to the ground above the contents of the building.

However, as determined by the court below, the height of the ground floor of the building in the construction of the building in this case at the original time is 280 centimeters, but the north side of the building is a building permit to be exposed to the ground from the surface of the road to the ground, and if the plaintiff constructed the underground floor such as the original time in violation of Article 2 subparagraph 5 of the Building Act, it cannot be deemed as the underground floor under Article 2 subparagraph 5 of the Building Act.

The judgment of the court below that the ground floor of the building of this case did not violate the construction-related Acts and subordinate statutes is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to underground floor under the above Building Act. Therefore, the argument about this point is reasonable.

3. Therefore, without examining the defendant's remaining grounds of appeal, we reverse the judgment below and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon So-young (Presiding Justice)