(a) The meaning of “a dead-end road” to which the restriction on construction by building lines shall apply pursuant to Article 30. 31 of the former Building Act or to secure a certain width pursuant to Article 62 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act;

(b) The case holding that a corrective order disposition to issue a building permit is unlawful, on the ground that the road has been used for a long time as a passage for neighboring residents and has been packed on the sidewalk, and that the wall is “a deadly another road” as referred to in paragraph (a) above, and that the wall is set up across the building site.

C. Whether the permission-granting authority grants a construction permit without an opportunity to designate a road as a road by failing to indicate the road referred to in the above “B” on the design map upon filing an application for a construction permit (affirmative)

A. Under Articles 30 and 31 of the former Building Act (amended by Act No. 4381 of May 31, 1991), “a dead-end road” that must secure a certain width pursuant to Article 62 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act means a road provided in Article 2 subparag. 15 of the former Building Act (amended by Act No. 4381 of May 31, 1991), i.e., a road that is publicly notified as a road pursuant to the relevant Act or its location is designated by the head of a Si

B. The case holding that the corrective order disposition issued by the permitting authority on the premise that the above road is "a deadly another road" under Article 2 subparagraph 15 of the former Building Act, on the ground that there was no disposition of road designation at the time of the public notice of the road or the building permit, and the road has been used for a passage of neighboring residents for a long time, and it cannot be deemed that it was a road under the Building Act solely on the basis that the road was packed on the sidewalk.

C. Since an applicant for a building permit does not have a duty to report that part of the site is actually being used as a road at the time of application or that the boundary of the site is adjacent to the passage of neighboring residents, even if the permitting agency did not indicate the road under the above “B” on the design drawing and did not have an opportunity to designate it as a road, it cannot be said that there are any defects in the building permit.

A. B. Article 2 of the former Building Act (amended by Act No. 4381 of May 31, 1991) and Article 64 (b) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12906 of January 18, 1990). Article 5 (b) of the former Building Act

B. Supreme Court Decision 89Nu7016 delivered on February 27, 1990 (Gong1990, 792)

Plaintiff

The head of Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 91Gu27268 delivered on April 3, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The defendant's grounds of appeal are examined.

On March 22, 191, the court below held that, even if the plaintiff was performing construction works with a building permit of 160.42 square meters on a lot of 179 square meters in Seoul Seo-gu, Seoul, the defendant had no obligation to construct a new building site on June 17, that part of the land near the boundary line of the said new building site and part of the site adjacent thereto had long been used as a passage road by neighboring residents, and that there was no other construction permit under Article 2 subparagraph 15 of the Building Act (amended by Act No. 4381 of May 31, 191; hereafter the same shall apply thereafter), the defendant did not have a duty to use the above new building site on the ground that the construction permit of this case cannot be seen as an application for the construction permit of this case for the construction permit of this case to prevent the use of a new building site on the boundary line of the said new building site or the construction permit of this case to prevent the use of a new building site on the building permit of this case. The court below held that the construction permit of this case was within 30.

In light of relevant evidence and records and the provisions of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the above recognition judgment of the court below is just and acceptable (see Supreme Court Decision 89Nu7016 delivered on February 27, 1990), and the judgment of the court below does not contain any errors such as the theory of lawsuit, and there is no reason to discuss.

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

Justices Yoon Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)