The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

judgment of the first instance.

In accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance which partially accepted the judgment of the first instance shall be cited.

In addition to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the entry of “related Acts and subordinate statutes” is as follows.

The Plaintiff’s assertion under the statutes applicable to the instant case is not the Building Act and the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”) but the Parking Lot Act, a special law, as the Plaintiff purchased the instant land from the Defendant for the purpose of parking lot, and used it as a street parking lot and newly constructed a light metal frame of 354 square meters on that ground (hereinafter “instant building”). As such, whether the use of the instant building is legitimate should be determined according to the following: (a) whether the use of the instant building is legitimate; (b) whether it is in accordance with the Building Act and the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”).

According to the Parking Lot Act, an off-road parking lot may be installed within the scope not exceeding 20% of the total facility area of the parking lot. The building of this case is only 19.97% of the total area of the off-road parking lot.

In addition, the Plaintiff obtained a building permit for the instant building, and obtained a new building permit for the instant building as not the first-class neighborhood living facilities, but rather the second-class neighborhood living facilities, and thus, can utilize the instant building as a religious facility, which is a second-class neighborhood living facilities.

Therefore, it is legitimate for the Plaintiff to apply for a change of use to a religious assembly site for the instant building.

Judgment

The argument that the disposition of this case where the Plaintiff imposed a charge for compelling the performance on the ground that the alteration of the use of the building violates the Building Act is nothing more than the assertion that the provisions of the Building Act other than the Building Act apply to the disposition of this case, and even if there are cases where the parking area should be considered in determining whether the alteration of the use of the Plaintiff’s building violates the Building Act, the Building Act, the National Land Planning Act, and the Parking Lot Act are different from the legislative purpose