(a) Whether the act of changing the use of a bath or a health club into a church without permission violates the Building Act (affirmative), and the regulations on housing construction standards promulgated thereafter;

(b) Whether a religious facility violates the attached Table 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act, which limits the installation of multi-family housing and limits the alteration of use from welfare facilities of multi-family housing, Article 6 and attached Table 2 of the Decree on Management of Multi-Family Housing, Article 4(1) of the Rules on Standards for Housing Construction, Article 11(1) of the Constitution, and Article 20(1) of the Freedom of religion (negative)

(a) If the use of a public bath or a health club is changed to a church without the permission of the authority, and if the use of the commercial building is changed to a church, even if the facility that can be used for religious life pursuant to Article 5 Subparag. 7 and Article 6(1)7 of the Regulations on Standards, etc. for Housing Construction promulgated thereafter (Presidential Decree No. 13252 of Jan. 15, 191) becomes a multi-family housing facility and is established within a housing complex, the relevant laws and regulations that allow the authority to obtain permission in changing the use of the building are not amended, such act shall constitute a criminal act in violation of Articles 54(1), 5(1) main sentence of Article 5(1), and 48 of the Building Act.

B. It is clear that the establishment of a religious facility is restricted and the alteration of use of a religious facility is restricted pursuant to Article 4(4) of the attached Table of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act, Article 6 and attached Table 2 of the Decree on the Management of Multi-Family Housing, and Article 4(1) of the Regulations on the Standards for Housing Construction, but such restriction is not limited to a religious facility, but limited to a religious facility, and it is possible to change the use of a neighboring living facility installed in a multi-family housing into a religious facility with permission from the authorities in accordance with Articles 48 and 5 of the Building Act, Article 99 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act, and Article 99 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. Therefore, each of the above restrictions is an unreasonable discrimination or restriction on rights. Therefore, it cannot be said that the above provisions violate the Article

(a) Article 54(1), the main sentence of Article 5(1), Article 48 of the Building Act, Articles 3 and 31(1) of the Housing Construction Promotion Act, Articles 5 subparag. 7 and 6(1)7(b) of the Regulations on Standards, etc. for Housing Construction (Presidential Decree No. 13252, Jan. 15, 191); Articles 11(1) and 20(1) of the Constitution; Articles 11(1) and 20(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act; Article 6(4) of the Addenda of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act; Article 6(2) of the Decree on the Standards,

Defendant

Defendant

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 90No6624 delivered on December 18, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

With respect to No. 1:

Even if Article 5 subparag. 7 and Article 6(1)7 of the Regulations on Standards, etc. for Housing Construction (Presidential Decree No. 13252, Jan. 15, 191) promulgated after the crime of this case, became a facility to be used in religious life, and the establishment of a housing complex is possible within a housing complex as a multi-family welfare facility, as long as relevant Acts and subordinate statutes that obtain permission from the authority in changing the purpose of use of a building are not amended, if the defendant changed the purpose of use of a commercial building that is a bath or health club to a church without permission from the authority as determined by the court below, such change constitutes a crime of violating Article 54(1), Article 5(1) main sentence of Article 5(1), and Article 48 of the Building Act. The assertion is groundless.

With respect to the second ground:

Although it is clear that the installation of a religious facility is restricted and the alteration of use from a welfare facility of a multi-family housing is restricted pursuant to attached Table 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act, Article 6 (Article 6 of the Addenda of the same Enforcement Decree) and attached Table 2, and Article 4 (1) of the Regulations on Housing Construction Standards, it is clear that the installation of a religious facility is restricted and the alteration of use from a welfare facility of a multi-family housing is restricted, as such, it is not limited to a religious facility, but it is possible to change the use of a neighborhood living facility installed in a multi-family housing to a religious facility with permission from the authorities under the provisions of Articles 48 and 5 of the Building Act, Article 99 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act, and Article 1 of the same Enforcement Decree of the same Act. Therefore, each of the above restrictions imposed to protect the residential environment of a multi-family housing by constructing and supplying a house equipped with adequate facilities (Article 1 of the Regulations on Standards for Housing Construction).

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

Justices Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)