[1] The meaning of "existing members" under the proviso of Article 13 (1) [Attachment 3] 2 (c) (2) (A) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Funeral Services, Etc.

[2] The case holding that if a building permit was newly constructed for the administrative purpose of inspection and the establishment of a charnel was reported after obtaining approval for use, it does not constitute a case where a charnel is established within the boundary of an existing member under Article 14 of the Act on Funeral Services, Etc. and Article 14 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act and Article 14 (1) [Attachment 3] (2) (c) (ii) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act

[1] Article 14(3) of the Act on Funeral Services, etc., Article 13(1) [Attachment 3](2)(A)(2)(A) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Funeral Services, etc. / [2] Article 14(3) of the Act on Funeral Services, etc., Article 13(1) [Attachment 3](2)(b)(A) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Funeral Services, etc.

[Defendant-Appellee] Gu Mychosa (Attorney Hwang Sung-sung, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

The head of Yeongdeungpo-si Office

Seoul High Court Decision 2007Nu7231 decided September 13, 2007

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

Article 14(3) of the Act on Funeral Services, Etc. (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") and Article 13(1) [Attachment 3] of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (proviso) of Article 13(2)(b)(A) of the same Act means a religious church equipped with human and physical facilities and believers necessary for the operation of members prior to the establishment of a charnel house.

Based on its adopted evidence, the court below determined that the non-party, from the spring of 202, collected the Ministry's container stuff on the site of this case and engaged in religious activities on December 27, 2002, the non-party, who was appointed as a chief inspector after obtaining a construction permit from the defendant on November 6, 2004 for the purpose of cultural and assembly facilities on the land of this case, and completed the construction with the approval for use on March 30, 2005. The non-party, after the completion of the construction of the above building, constructed a public charnel facility for the removal of charnel within the building of this case, and newly constructed a new charnel facility for the purpose of installation of a new charnel facility for the purpose of use of the building of this case or new charnel facility for the purpose of use of the building of this case after obtaining a construction permit for the building of this case, the non-party, who was scheduled to use the building of this case and new charnel facility for the purpose of use of the building of this case.

In light of the above legal principles and records, we affirm the fact-finding and judgment of the court below as just, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles or misunderstanding of facts due to violation of the rules of evidence.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

In light of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the court below determined that the above Acts and subordinate statutes stipulate that access roads not less than 5 meters wide shall be provided except for the cases where a religious organization is installed within the boundaries of the existing employees among charnels established by religious organization. In order to access the building of this case by using vehicles, the court below should pass through the 45 national highways to the 1.2km, which passed before the plaintiff temple, or pass through the 2km from the opposite to the above 45 national highways, and pass through the 2km, and then pass through the packages connected to the national highways of this case, which pass by the plaintiff's employees. Since the width is merely about 4 meters, it cannot be viewed as securing access roads not less than 5 meters wide.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles or the violation of the rules of evidence as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. Conclusion

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

Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)