Whether the change of use to a store can be deemed to have been changed solely on the fact that a shutdown stop was installed.

It is not recognized that the purpose of use is changed to the store only by installing a shutdown in the house without specific identification of the structure and use status of the place.

Article 48 of the Building Act

Defendant

Defendant

Suwon District Court Decision 85No572 delivered on November 9, 1985

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

1. The first live ex officio.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below recognized that the defendant changed the use of 28.7 square meters of underground affiliated companies to a store among the houses with 127.1 square meters of land owned by the defendant located in the 127.1 square meters of land owned by the defendant in the Si-Yung-gun, Gyeonggi-do, which is a development-restricted zone in the city of Si-gu on May 1983, 1983, and maintained the judgment of the first instance court, which is punished by the defendant

However, Article 56 of the Building Act, which is a penal provision, was amended by Act No. 3766, Dec. 31, 1984, which was after the violation of this case. According to the previous provision of the Act, a fine not exceeding one million won shall be imposed at the time of trial, and according to the current provision after the amendment of the corporation, a fine not exceeding two million won shall be imposed at the time of trial. Thus, Article 1 of the Criminal Act shall apply to the previous provision of the Act. However, the court below erred in the application of the Act by maintaining the judgment of the first instance court that applied the current provision just simply with the above provisions.

2. Next, we examine the Defendant’s grounds of appeal.

Article 5(2)1 of the Building Act, which applies by the judgment of the court of first instance, provides that where the sum of the floor area is extended, reconstructed, reconstructed, or substantially repaired within 30 square meters, a report shall be filed with the head of the Si/Gun in advance, and Article 2(2) through (4) and (6) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that the definition of extension, reconstruction, reconstruction, and large-scale repair shall be defined. Since the judgment of the court of first instance only ruled that the defendant changed the use of the area of 28.7 square meters into a store, it is not clear whether it falls under any of the cases of extension, remodeling, reconstruction, or large-scale repair, there is no clear evidence to regard it as a case.

If the judgment of the court of first instance considers the act of changing the use of a building as a construction of a building under Article 48 of the Building Act and applies Article 5 (2) 1 of the Building Act, the reason for the judgment is that it did not clearly state the application of Article 48 of the Building Act, and according to the witness Kim-sik's testimony employed by the court of first instance, it is recognized that the defendant filed a complaint on the design house as the change of the use of the store because the closed door was put up on the design house. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that the use of the building was changed to the store only without specific identification of the structure and use status of the place. In this regard, there is a reason and insufficient hearing.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court 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 Park Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)