Where a building permit or inspection of the completion of a building on the site, which is the sole passage of a dead-endlley road, is conducted, whether it is deemed that there was the location of the road for such alley road or that there was a designation disposition.

In accordance with Articles 36 and 37 of the Building Act, "a dead-end road" under Article 2, subparagraph 11 of the Building Act, to which a construction restriction by building line is applicable, refers only to a road defined in the same Article, i.e., a road designated by the head of a Si/Gun at the time of public notification or construction permission pursuant to relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, and if the location is designated as a "road", the owner of the road is subject to restrictions on land use under the Building Act, so the location should be clearly designated by specifying the section, extension, width, location, etc. of the road under the Building Act. Therefore, even if a building permit for a site where a dead-end road is the only passing through the road or a completion inspection on the site thereof has been conducted, it cannot be presumed that Article 33 (1) of the Building Act has been designated as a road for the said alley, on the ground that Article 33 (1) of the Building Act provides that the site of the building should be adjacent to the road at least two meters.

Article 2 subparag. 11, Article 33(1), Article 36, and Article 37 of the Building Act

Plaintiff

Head of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 94Gu1127 delivered on July 27, 1994

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

In accordance with Articles 36 and 37 of the Building Act, "a dead-end road" under Article 2, subparagraph 11 of the Building Act, to which limitations on construction by building lines apply, refers to a road defined in the same Article, i.e., a road that is publicly notified in advance or the head of a Si/Gun designates its location in accordance with relevant Acts and subordinate statutes at the time of permission for construction. If a site is designated as the above "road", the owner of the road is subject to restrictions on land use under the Building Act, so the location should be designated clearly by specifying the section, extension, width, location, etc. of the road under the Building Act. Therefore, even if a construction permit for the site where a dead-end road is designated as the only passing through the road or a completion inspection for the building on the site, it cannot be presumed that Article 33, Paragraph 1 of the Building Act has been designated as a road on the above aggregate road, on the ground that Article 33 of the Building Act provides that the site of the building should be adjacent to a road.

In the same purport, it is reasonable for the court below to reject the defendant's assertion that the road of this case, which is the only access road to the site at the time, should be designated as a road under the Building Act since the completion disposition was taken on May 20, 1976 as to the building on the ground of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul (No. 1 omitted), and there is no error of law

In addition, since the inspection of completion of a building on the above ( Address 2 omitted) and ( Address 3 omitted) site was conducted on February 10, 1965, it is argued that a road designation disposition under the Building Act on the road of this case should be deemed to have been made. However, this is a new assertion of fact that there was no assertion in the original judgment, and thus, it cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal against the original judgment.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of 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 Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)