The meaning when the construction work for the completion inspection as prescribed in Article 7 of the Building Act is completed.

The term "construction completion of a building which has been permitted for completion inspection" means the completion of a building which is completed to the extent that it is practically possible to use the original purpose of the building by constructing a roof and a main wall and having one building fixed on the land. Furthermore, it is insufficient to have a roof and a main wall up to exist.

Article 7 of the Building Act

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Park Hong-woo, and Jeong-won

Suwon District Court Decision 84No153 delivered on April 27, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant and his defense counsel are also examined.

According to Article 7 of the Building Act, when the construction of a building, etc. permitted under Article 5 (1) of the Building Act has been completed, the owner shall report it to the head of the competent Si/Gun, and thereafter the head of the competent Si/Gun shall, if the building passes the inspection after conducting a completion inspection, require the owner to deliver a certificate of completion inspection. According to Article 5 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act and Article 2 (1) 2 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, the application for a building permit shall be accompanied by the same design as the floor plan of each floor, and the drawing shall be accumulated 1., accumulation and the purpose and area of each floor on the 2. On the 4.0th of the 5th of the fire zone and door, the 5. corridor on the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the fire doors.

Therefore, the completion of a building permitted for completion inspection is insufficient to mean that the independent real estate subject to ownership becomes an independent real estate, i.e., the existence of one building fixed on the land with a roof and a main wall, and furthermore, the construction is completed to the extent that it is possible to use the building according to the original usage of the building as a result of the construction permission.

2. According to the evidence cited by the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below, the first and fifth floor buildings of this case were constructed for their main purpose as neighborhood living facilities, and according to their design drawings, the first floor is constructed for the purpose of each floor, and the first floor is a pharmacy, perfecter store, daily necessities store, laundry house, laundry house, second floor of public restaurant, maternity clinic, maternity clinic, dominium, management center and warehouse, third floor office, fourth floor and fourth floor are Taekwondo hall, fifth floor and fourth floor are common living facilities such as billiard hall, billiard hall, flag clinic, veterinary hospital, etc., and the area of each room, corridor location and size of corridor are designed. However, since the defendant completed the construction work of the building of this case as of August 31, 1982, and the construction work of each floor was prepared for the design of each building building building, each floor facility (for example, the wall section for use and profit-making, etc.) according to the design drawings, the original report of the court below cannot be found to have been actually completed due to the original purpose of the building.

3. The modification of minor matters under the proviso of Article 5 (4) of the Building Act is not permitted, and according to Article 99 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act, if the use of a building is a neighborhood living facility, it is identical to the theory that the use of each section of the attached table in the case of a neighborhood living facility, and the modification of the use between each subparagraph (e.g., the first floor pharmacy is a midwifery clinic, the second floor beauty museum is a midwifery clinic) is not permitted. However, the above modification is not included in the first floor indicated in the design drawing as well as the above modification in the case of a failure to install facilities suitable for the purpose of each room, as in the case of this case. On the ground that there is the above provision, there is no conclusion that the inspection of completion of the building in this case is only a minor matter, or that it is unnecessary to install facilities suitable for the purpose of each room, and

4. Therefore, all arguments are without merit, and the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Shin Jong-sung (Presiding Justice)