[1] The meaning of permanent buildings under Article 2 subparagraph 1 (b) of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Site

[2] In a case where a building on public record is illegally used for other purpose, whether the site of the building constitutes a housing site subject to the regulation of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites (affirmative)

[1] In full view of the contents and purport of Article 2 subparagraph 1 (b) of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites, Articles 2 and 3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13882 of May 10, 193), the permanent buildings under Article 2 subparagraph 1 (b) of the same Act shall be limited to those which are required to be permitted or reported under the Building Act and other related Acts and subordinate statutes, and those which are not required to obtain permission or to undergo a completion inspection and which are not required to undergo a completion inspection, and which are not required to undergo a completion inspection.

[2] In a case where a building on public record is used for a purpose other than a house, even if it is currently used for a purpose other than a house, the site of the building is still subject to regulation under the Act on the Ownership of Housing Site, barring special circumstances, in view of the fact that it can be easily used for a residential purpose without going through any particular procedure, and where a building on public record is used for another purpose without going through legitimate change of use.

[1] Article 2 subparagraph 1 (b) of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites, Articles 2 and 3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13882 of May 10, 193) / [2] Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites, Articles 2 and 3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13882 of May 10, 1993)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 93Nu20320 delivered on May 13, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 1722), Supreme Court Decision 94Nu3506 delivered on November 25, 1994 (Gong1995Sang, 117) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 93Nu15878 delivered on December 14, 1993 (Gong1994Sang, 384Sang, 1353 delivered on March 25, 1994 (Gong194Sang, 1353), Supreme Court Decision 94Nu1968 delivered on May 10, 194 (Gong194, 1720), Supreme Court Decision 9Nu3759 delivered on May 27, 1995 (Gong2975 decided May 29, 295)

The Korea Foundation, the Korea Foundation, the Korea Foundation Foundation

Head of the Gun (Attorney Kim Sang-hoon, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Busan High Court Decision 94Gu1609 delivered on December 16, 1994

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

We examine the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal.

In full view of the contents and purport of the relevant provisions such as Article 2 subparagraph 1 (b) of the Housing Site Ownership Act and Article 2 subparagraph 1 (b) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13882 of May 10, 1993), the permanent buildings under Article 2 subparagraph 1 (b) of the same Act refer only to buildings which are required to be permitted or reported pursuant to the Building Act and other related Acts and subordinate statutes, but which are not permitted or reported and buildings which need to undergo a completion inspection and which are not inspected upon completion of construction (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Nu3506, Nov. 25, 1994; 94Nu3506, Nov. 25, 1994). In addition, the buildings under the public record are currently used for purposes other than a house, if they can be used for the first residential purpose without undergoing any special procedure, and are used for the purpose of use alteration without due cause, they constitute a site subject to regulation 94.

In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that only a building constructed on the ground of this case 1 to 15 without due process of change of its use, which was used as a pre-use pipe or constructed on the ground without due process, even though the building of this case was not inspected upon completion of construction or registered on the public register, constitutes a housing site as a housing site as a housing site or a BB site, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles, such as theory of lawsuit.

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 Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)