Whether an office, warehouse, dormitory, or restaurant attached to a factory building constitutes business facilities or accommodation facilities prescribed in Article 5 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act (Presidential Decree No. 12403 of Feb. 4, 1988) (negative)

Four buildings among the six buildings are factories, and two buildings, such as offices, warehouses, dormitories, restaurants, offices, etc., are subsidiary buildings of the factory, and the main purpose of use is the factory, and offices, warehouses, dormitories, and restaurants is reasonable to regard them as subsidiary use. Therefore, it is erroneous to regard the use of the office 20 buildings as factories under the attached Table 17 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act, not as factories under the attached Table 11 and 12, but as business facilities and accommodation facilities under the attached Table 11 and 12 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act.

Articles 2(1) and 55(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act (Presidential Decree No. 12403, Feb. 4, 1988)

A

Defendant

Attorney B

Suwon District Court Decision 92No8 delivered on July 23, 1992

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Suwon District Court Panel Division.

As to the grounds of appeal by defense counsel

Examining the facts of the defendant guilty in the judgment of the court of first instance, the defendant is a public official in Grade 7 working in the city and C of the Sungsung-gun Office. On July 5, 198, the defendant received a construction report on the same 260 square meters of office building constructed in the name of Dong, EF, and G, and 260 square meters of a dormitory and cafeteria building constructed on three lots of land from non-indicted D for the purpose of exercising it in the city and C of the Seosan-gun Office and he was found guilty, and as a result, it was conducted at the site of the building in order to verify whether the construction report was consistent with the design drawings of the above building, and as a result, it was installed in the construction site of the above building in the building site and constructed only with a double of wood and aluminium, but it was not possible to separately verify that the construction report was installed in the state of a dormitory and cafeteria-gun office in which the purpose thereof was to be constructed, and that it was not suitable to have been installed in the shape of the building.

According to Article 55 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act (the Presidential Decree No. 12403, Feb. 24, 1988) in support of the judgment of the court of first instance, the court below stipulated that the floor area of the living room used for the corresponding purpose of the facility for the elderly, education and research facility, sports facility, business facility, lodging facility, sales facility, amusement facility, viewing assembly facility, exhibition facility, transportation facility, tourist resting facility, etc. should be separated for male and female use on the floor on which the total floor area of the living room used for the corresponding purpose is not less than 200 square meters. According to the records, if the building of this case is 260 square meters in area and there is no change in the building of this case at the time when the defendant completed the construction, it is clear that the building of this case is in violation of the above construction-related Acts and subordinate statutes, and if the building of this case was constructed in conformity with the construction-related Acts and subordinate statutes, it can be deemed that the construction-related inspection report of this case was prepared without timely inspection report by the defendant.

According to the application for building permit, permit, building ledger, etc. included in the record, the building of this case is six buildings constructed on three lots of land of Osan City E, F, andG, and the building of this case is a factory of Ga, B, C, D, 4 buildings, and the office of E, warehouse, B, and B, a dormitory, and a restaurant. The court below found B, B, a building of this case, as business facilities, accommodation facilities under Article 5 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act, but the above E, B, a building of this case, as an accessory building of a factory of this case (Article 2 (1) 10 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act), is the main use of the building, and it is reasonable to regard it as an accessory building of this case as an office, warehouse, dormitory, and restaurant. In other words, since the use of B, the building of this case (Article 2 (1) 12 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act) is a factory of attached Table 17, 11, 12, and accommodation facilities.

Even if the Ma-dong building of this case is deemed to be a building for other similar purposes as stipulated in Article 55 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act, the total floor area shall not be less than 200 square meters. According to the entry in the building ledger, the office among the Ma-dong shall not be less than 130 square meters, and the dormitory among the Ba-dong shall not exceed 130 square meters, and it shall not be subject to Article 55 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act.

The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles under Article 55 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The grounds for appeal are with merit.

It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench that the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below.