Scope of alteration of use to be deemed construction of a building under the Building Act.

Article 48 of the Building Act and Article 99 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act include not only the offender who changes the use between the purposes prescribed in the table of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, each item, and each subparagraph, but also the use for other purposes. It does not necessarily require a tangible change, and it is also a case where the successor of a building, the type of which has already been changed, continues to use it for the changed purpose.

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

Supreme Court Decision 86Do1865 Decided July 8, 1986 (Gong1986,1018) 87Do133 Decided August 18, 1987 (Gong1987,1488) 89Do9 Decided December 12, 1989 (Gong190,301)

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Attorney Lee Jin-ok

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 89No4253 delivered on October 26, 1989

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 48 of the Building Act and Article 99 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act include not only the offender who changes the use between the purposes prescribed in the table, each item, and each subparagraph of the Enforcement Decree, but also the use for other purposes. It does not necessarily mean that the act continues to be used for the changed purpose of the successor to a building which has already been classified as a type of alteration (see Supreme Court Decision 86Do1865 delivered on July 8, 1986; Supreme Court Decision 87Do1333 delivered on August 18, 1987; Supreme Court Decision 89Do9 delivered on December 12, 1989).

The court below is just in finding Defendant 2 guilty on the ground that Defendant 2, the owner of the 3rd underground floor above the 1st underground floor in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul, Yeongdeungpo-gu, and Defendant 1, who leased the 1st underground floor above the above building and operated the 1st underground floor above the above building, in collusion with the authorities on April 10, 198, using the 6th floor above the above 1st underground floor of the 329.92 square meters above the above building, which was a neighboring green living facility, and changed the neighboring green living facilities into the amusement facilities for the purpose of using it as the amusement facilities without permission from the authorities, and there is no illegality of misapprehension of legal principles such as the theory of lawsuit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Yong-dong (Presiding Justice)