logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.08.10 2016노1447
건축법위반
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, misunderstanding the facts, merely requested D to change the construction of a large-scale repair as permitted, did not request D to construct a new building, and even in this case, D should remove the existing building, he was aware that it was included in the scope of the large-scale repair construction. However, the lower court found Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) In this regard, "construction" means new construction of a building, extension, remodeling, or reconstruction of a building, or relocation of a building, which requires a building permit under the Building Act; "new construction" means new construction of a building on a site without a building (including a site removed or demolished for an existing building); and "construction of a building" means removal of the whole or part of an existing building (referring to cases including three or more of bearing walls, columns, beams, and roof trusses) and reconstruction of a building on the site within the same size as that of the previous building (Article 2 subparagraph 8 of the Building Act; Article 2 subparagraph 1 and 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act). On the contrary, "Construction of a building requires a large-scale repair permit under the Building Act" means to repair, alter, or rebuild its structure or form outside, such as columns, beams, bearing walls, main stairs, etc., and it does not constitute the removal or reconstruction of a new building under Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act (Article 3 of the Building Act).

2) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant is a ground C-based plant at the lower court on December 21, 2012.

arrow