A. Legal nature of the disposition for completion of building

(b) Whether an owner of an adjacent building has a legal interest in seeking confirmation or revocation of the disposition of completion of building.

A. The disposition of building completion is merely a legal effect that enables the permitted person to use and benefit from the building constructed by confirming whether the building constructed upon obtaining a building permit is appropriate for the purpose of the construction administration in accordance with the building permit and issuing a certificate of completion inspection.

B. A lawsuit seeking confirmation or revocation of a disposition can be instituted only by a person who has a legal interest in seeking confirmation or revocation of the disposition, such as invalidation, etc., and even if a newly constructed building infringes upon the privacy and right of sunshine of owners of neighboring houses due to construction in violation of the Building Act, such as increase of the number of buildings without permission, violation of separation distance, bending, and change of unauthorized structure, there is no legal interest in seeking confirmation or revocation of the said construction completion disposition as owners of neighboring buildings.

A. Articles 5 and 7(b) of the former Building Act (amended by Act No. 4381 of May 31, 1991)

A. Supreme Court Decision 84Nu515 delivered on January 22, 1985 (Gong1985, 376), 88Nu4690 delivered on May 23, 1989 (Gong1989, 1016) (Gong1992, 1604). Supreme Court Decision 91Nu1131 delivered on April 24, 1992 (Gong192, 1738), Supreme Court Decision 91Nu9329 delivered on October 27, 1992 (Gong192, 312), 91Nu1554 delivered on June 8, 1993 (Gong193Ha, 2025)

Plaintiff (Appointed Party)

The head of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 91Gu27039 delivered on May 19, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal by the plaintiff (appointed party).

처분의 무효 등 확인소송이나 취소소송은 처분의 무효 등 확인이나 취소를 구할 법률상 이익이 있는 자만이 제기할 수 있다고 할 것인바, 건축관련법규는 준공처분과 관련하여 인접주택소유자의 권리에 대하여 특별한 규정을 두고 있지 않고, 건물의 준공처분은 건축허가를 받아 건축된 건물이 건축허가사항대로 건축행정목적에 적합한가의 여부를 확인하고 준공검사필증을 교부하여 줌으로써 허가받은 자로 하여금 건축한 건물을 사용, 수익할 수 있게 하는 법률효과를 발생시키는 것에 불과하며 ( 당원 1992. 4. 10. 선고 91누5358 판결 참조), 건축한 건물이 인접주택 소유자의 권리를 침해하는 경우 준공처분이 그러한 침해까지 정당화하는 것은 아닐 뿐만 아니라, 인접주택 소유자가 입는 생활환경상의 이익침해는 실제로 위 건물의 전부 또는 일부가 철거됨으로써 회복되거나 보호받을 수 있는 것인데, 위 건물에 대한 준공처분의 무효확인이나 취소를 받는다 하여도 그로 인하여 건축주는 위 건물을 적법하게 사용할 수 없게 되어 위 건물은 준공 이전의 상태로 돌아가게 되는 것에 그칠 뿐 위반건물에 대한 시정명령을 할 것인지 여부, 그 시기 및 명령의 내용 등은 행정청의 합리적 판단에 의하여 결정되어야 할 자유재량에 맏겨져 있는 점 등에 비추어 보면, 원고 주장과 같이 소외인이 신축한 건물이 무단증평, 이격거리위반, 베란다돌출, 무단구조변경 등 건축법에 위반하여 시공됨으로써 인접주택 소유자인 원고 및 선정자 1의 사생활과 일조권을 침해하고 있다고 하더라도, 인접건물 소유자들로서는 위 준공처분의 무효확인이나 취소를 구할 법률상 이익이 없다 고 할 것이다.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles or incomplete hearing, etc. The precedents cited by the theory of lawsuit cannot be appropriate to invoke the case in this case.

In addition, in this case, which was retired on the ground that the plaintiff is not qualified in the court below, the assertion that the completion disposition of this case is unlawful is based on the premise that the plaintiff and the selected person 1 have the interest in the plaintiff's qualification or lawsuit, and thus cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Ansan-man (Presiding Justice)