Where a person who has obtained permission for large-scale repair performs any construction work different from the contents of permission, the case holding that he has no responsibility to regulate the employees of

According to Article 4 (3) of the Regulations on the Control of Unauthorized Building that has been granted permission for substantial repair, it is difficult to objectively and easily detect the existing building as a result of the progress of construction, unlike the case of construction of a building without permission on a site without a building, and it is also difficult to objectively detect the existing building after the permission for substantial repair, and it falls under the case of construction different from the contents of the permission with the permission for substantial repair, and thus, the responsibility for prevention and control is the head of the Gu who is the permitting department, and it cannot

Article 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Plaintiff

The head of Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 85Gu121 delivered on July 24, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the non-party 1, 2, 34.31 square meters of the above 34-1, 2, and 34.94 square meters of the above 1, 2, and 68.5 square meters of the above 69-1, Jung-gu, Seoul, and that the non-party 1, 2, constructed new structures with permission for substantial repair and substantial repair of the above 1, 100.25 square meters of the 1,2, 100.25 square meters of the above 1, 2, and the non-party 1, 34-1, 34.31 square meters of the above 34-1, 1983 without permission, or the non-party 1, 2, 2, 78.94 square meters of the above 1, and the non-party 1, 2, and 194 notified the plaintiff of the change of the construction permission or new structure without permission's permission's authority.

According to the records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are correct, and the building constructed with permission for large-scale repair is not a building to remove the existing building without permission, but a building constructed with permission for large-scale repair is identical to theory, but unless the Gu office notifies the construction contents, drawings, etc. to the Dong after permission for large-scale repair, it cannot be known whether the permitted construction works fall under any of the items of Article 2 (1) 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act, and it is difficult to objectively detect the building without permission unlike the case where a building is constructed without permission for large-scale repair on the building site without permission, and it is difficult to detect it objectively and objectively according to the fair construction of the building. This falls under the case where a building is constructed without permission for large-scale repair and it is different from the permitted contents of permission for large-scale repair and thus, the control responsibility for prevention belongs to the defendant, which is the permission department, and it cannot be viewed as a new building without permission, and thus, it cannot be viewed as an illegal interpretation of Article 4 (2), Article 5 and Article 6 of the Regulations.

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

Justices Jeong Jong-tae (Presiding Justice)