Article 14 of the Building Act shall apply Scope

Article 14 of the Building Act provides that if the Building Act applies, it shall be limited to the extent necessary to achieve the purpose of the Building Act, and it shall not be deemed that it is a general provision on construction, and it shall not be deemed that it is widely applied to areas other than the Building Act.

Articles 14, 78(1) of the Building Act, Article 92(1) of the Urban Planning Act

Defendant

Defendant

Daejeon District Court Decision 94No1221 delivered on January 13, 1995

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Summary of the judgment below

According to the records, as the chief of the general affairs division of the non-party corporation, the prosecutor did not obtain permission from the authority in charge of the management, etc. of the company's property, and on December 31, 1993, the above company's five and six floors totaled of 1,028.60 square meters and six floors owned by the above company and changed the use of the above building by leasing it as a salary supply site. As to the defendant's indictment of violation of the Building Act by limiting the above Building Act to the owner of the building and limiting the above provision to the owner of the building, the court below acquitted the defendant of violation of the Building Act, on the grounds that the first instance court did not recognize that the owner of the building, who is an employee of the above company, is a representative of the owner of the building, for the following reasons, unless it is recognized that the defendant conspired with the representative of the owner of the company. The court below reversed it ex officio and found him guilty on the grounds as follows.

In other words, Article 78(1) and Article 8(1) of the Building Act and Article 92 Subparag. 1 and Article 4(1)2 of the Urban Planning Act provide for punishment for the act of constructing a building without permission within an urban planning zone, and Article 92 Subparag. 1 and Article 4(1)2 of the Urban Planning Act provide that the subject of an act among the act of unauthorized construction within an urban planning zone intends to punish the case where the owner is the owner of the building. Article 14 of the Building Act that regards the act of altering the use of a building as the act of building as the construction of a building is applied to the case of violation of the Urban Planning Act related to the construction. Thus, in this case where the owner of a building is not the owner of a building without permission, the act of changing the use of a building should be punished as a violation of the Urban Planning Act that can be deliberated and determined within the scope of the facts charged without permission. However, the first instance judgment

2. Determination:

The purpose of the Building Act is to contribute to the promotion of public welfare by setting the standards for sites, structures, and installations of buildings and the use of buildings to improve the safety, function, and aesthetic view thereof (see Article 1). Since Article 14 provides that the act of changing the use of buildings in order to achieve that purpose shall be regarded as the construction of buildings as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, Article 14 of the Building Act shall be limited to the necessary scope in order to achieve the purpose of the Building Act, and it shall not be deemed that Article 14 of the Building Act applies to the case where the Building Act applies, to the extent that it is necessary to achieve the purpose of the Building Act, and it shall not be deemed that the general provision

Therefore, under the premise that Article 14 of the Building Act is applied to the case of violation of the Urban Planning Act related to the construction as a general provision concerning the construction, the court below's punishment by applying Article 92 subparagraph 1 and Article 4 (1) 2 of the Building Act and Article 14 of the Building Act to the defendant prosecuted for a violation of Articles 78 (1), 8 (1), and 14 of the Building Act without any amendment to the bill of amendment shall be deemed to constitute a case where the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles of Article 14 of the Building Act and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, the ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal by the defendant, the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)