[1] In a case where a report on change of use of a building satisfies the building standard, whether an administrative agency can refuse to accept the report due to any other reason without any relevant statute (negative)

[2] In order for the owner of a commercial building to change the purpose of use for the pertinent section for exclusive use, whether the owner of the commercial building should either obtain the consent of the owner of the other sectional ownership or obtain the consent of the owner of the other sectional ownership in accordance with Article 5(1) of the Act

[3] The case holding that the disposition rejecting a report on the change of use to "educational research and welfare facilities" of a commercial building which is a "Class II neighborhood living facilities" is unlawful as it restricts the change of use without any legal ground

[1] In light of the purport of Article 14 of the former Building Act (amended by Act No. 7696 of Nov. 8, 2005), it is reasonable to interpret that an administrative agency shall not refuse to accept the report on change of use on the ground that there is any other reason, unless the report on change of use is in conformity with the construction standard for the change of use.

[2] Article 5 (1) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings provides that "the sectional owner shall not engage in any conduct detrimental to the preservation of a building or any other conduct detrimental to the common interest of the sectional owner regarding the management and use of a building." However, the purport of the provision is not to include that the sectional owner of a commercial building, which is an aggregate building, should do so together with other sectional owners or should obtain their consent in changing the purpose of use to the relevant section of exclusive ownership.

[3] The case holding that the disposition that rejected the report on the change of use to "educational research and welfare facilities" of a commercial building which is a "Class II neighborhood living facilities" should be reported on the change of use to other parts of the commercial building is unlawful as it restricts the change of use without any legal ground.

[1] Article 14 of the former Building Act (amended by Act No. 7696 of Nov. 8, 2005) / [2] Article 5 (1) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings / [3] Article 5 (1) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings

[1] Supreme Court Decision 97Nu6414 delivered on February 25, 2000, Supreme Court Decision 2004Du6006 Delivered on October 26, 2006 (Gong2006Ha, 2002)

Plaintiff

Ulsan Metropolitan City Head of Ulsan Metropolitan City (Law Firm International Law, Attorney Ha Man-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Busan High Court Decision 2005Nu1824 delivered on November 25, 2005

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

The grounds of appeal are examined together.

In light of the purport of Article 14 of the former Building Act (amended by Act No. 7696, Nov. 8, 2005; hereinafter the same), an administrative agency should interpret that a report of change of the purpose of use of a building cannot be rejected on the ground that there is any reason other than that prescribed by the relevant Act and subordinate statutes unless the report of change of the purpose of use of the building is in conformity with the construction standards for the change of purpose of use (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Du6006, Oct. 26, 2006). Meanwhile, Article 5(1) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings provides that "the sectional owner shall not engage in any act harmful to the preservation of the building and other acts detrimental to the common interest of the sectional owner with respect to the management and use of the building." However, the purport of the provision is that the owner of a commercial building, which is an aggregate building, should be accompanied by other sectional owners or should obtain their consent in changing the purpose of use of the building.

The court below recognized that the contents of the report on the change of use of the building of this case as "Class II neighborhood living facilities" intended to change the use of the building of this case from "Class II neighborhood living facilities" to "educational, research and welfare facilities" which can be used as other buildings belonging to the purpose, such as schools, education institutes, and vocational training centers, and held that the defendant's rejection of the report on change of use of this case in compliance with the building standard due to the reason that the report on change of use should be reported to other parts of the commercial building used as an existing private teaching institute is unlawful because it restricts the change of use of the owner of the commercial building without any legal ground. In light of the above legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is just, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Ill-sook (Presiding Justice)