Scope of change of use under the Building Act

The alteration of the use under the Building Act shall include the use for other purposes as prescribed by the subparagraphs of the Schedule of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act, and the alteration does not necessarily entail a tangible alteration.

Article 48 of the Building Act, Article 2(1) and Article 99(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Noh Jeong-hee, Spank

Busan District Court Decision 84No2500 delivered on July 19, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the facts constituting the crime in the first instance court's judgment against the defendant are duly recognized, and the process of cooking evidence and fact-finding by the records of the court below is examined, and there is no such unlawful cause as the theory

2. Article 48 of the Building Act provides that the act of changing the purpose of use of a building shall be deemed to be the act of constructing a building under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree. Article 5 (1) of the Building Act provides that a building shall be constructed with permission from the competent authority. Article 42 (1) 1 of the Building Act provides that the head of a Si/Gun may order the suspension of construction, removal, reconstruction, extension, repair, prohibition of use, restriction on use, and other necessary measures when a building is constructed or repaired in violation of the Building Act or an order or disposition issued under the same Act. Article 55 of the same Act provides that a person who violates the above order of the head of a Si/Gun shall be punished. According to the above provision, an act of changing the purpose of use without permission becomes an act of constructing a building without permission, and a violation of the order of correction by the head of a Si/Gun shall be punished. Article 24 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act provides that a change in the purpose of use of a building shall not be construed to include any change of use and any one of each subparagraph.

3. According to the facts at the time of the original adjudication, the defendant used the underground room of this case constructed according to the implementation plan of the urban planning project for the purpose other than the purpose at the time of the authorization, and changed the use into a warehouse other than the purpose at the time of the authorization, not as a shelter, and the head of the competent district office ordered correction, but decided that the defendant violated Article 48, Article 55 subparagraph 3, Article 42 (1) of the Building Act, and Article 174-2 (1) 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act (in this case, it is obvious that the defendant is a clerical error as provided in Article 99 (1) 6 of the Building Act), and there was a detailed statement of criminal facts corresponding to the change of purpose of use as provided in Article 48 of the Building Act, which can meet the elements of crime in the indication of the criminal facts, and the court below also rejected the correction order under the premise that the change of purpose of use by the defendant was justified and there is no reasonable ground or there is no possibility for the owner to independently use of the concept of the original change.

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

Justices Yoon Yoon-tae (Presiding Justice)