Whether a short or short circuit or short circuit of a building violating the Building Act is an administrative disposition subject to appeal litigation (negative)

Fractional or fractional or telephone measures against a building in violation of the Building Act, which are imposed by the head of a Si/Gun after issuing a corrective order with regard to the building in violation of the Building Act, are not an administrative disposition subject to appeal litigation, but merely an actual measure against the violation of an administrative disposition

Articles 2 and 3 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 69 of the Building Act

Dong-Seng Textiles Co.

The head of Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

The instant lawsuit is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The administrative disposition taken by the defendant against the plaintiff as of October 11, 1991 is revoked by the short circuit, fraction, and short circuit of the 11th ground of Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Seongdong-dong 2, Seongdong-gu, 275.

In accordance with the provision of Article 42(2) of the Building Act on October 11, 1990 and Article 42(2) of the Building Act on the ground that the Plaintiff violated the provision of Article 7-3 of the Building Act by changing the use of the above building designated as neighborhood living facilities into a factory and thereby violating the provision of Article 7-3 of the Building Act, it is a building the use of which is designated as neighborhood living facilities. The Plaintiff was a 52 square meters from June 1, 1987 to 365.62 square meters from the land of the above building. The Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff requested the suspension of the supply of the above building on October 28, 1991, under the provision of Article 42(2) of the Building Act on the ground that the Plaintiff violated the provision of Article 7-3 of the Building Act.

Therefore, the plaintiff did not change the purpose of use of the building of this case, which was used as a factory since the previous change of use, as it was, as it was, and the defendant argued that it should be cancelled as an illegal administrative disposition to prevent the plaintiff from engaging in the production business in the above building even though the defendant has silented it.

However, according to the provisions of Article 7-3 of the Building Act, the owner or manager of a building shall always maintain and manage the use, etc. of the building in compliance with this Act or an order or disposition under this Act. According to the provisions of Article 42 (1) and (2) of the Building Act, if the building is in violation of this Act or an order or disposition under this Act, the head of the Si/Gun may order the owner of the building, the owner, the manager, or the occupant of the building (hereinafter referred to as the "owner, etc.") to prohibit or restrict the use of the building within a reasonable period, and may not supply electricity, telephone, and water to the building which has failed to comply with such order, and may not permit the business or other acts under other Acts and subordinate statutes using the building. According to the purport of the above provision, it is merely a violation of the above provision that the defendant, as the owner of the building, issued the order or the head of the Gun with substantial grace period for the building, and only one of the above corrective measures may be entrusted to the plaintiff before its issuance.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking revocation against the notification of the suspension of the instant case, the fraction, and the short-term telephone by the defendant is unlawful, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the court below.

Judges Kim Young-il (Presiding Judge) Kim Tae-dae