Whether the continuous use by a successor to a building already changed for the changed purpose is included in the alteration of use under the Building Act (affirmative)

Article 19(2)2 of the former Building Act (Amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013); Article 108 of the Building Act

Supreme Court Decision 92Do1647 delivered on September 22, 1992 (Gong1992, 3042) Supreme Court Decision 2001Do3990 Delivered on September 25, 2001 (Gong2001Ha, 2397) Supreme Court Decision 2005Do4592 Delivered on September 29, 2005 (Gong2005Ha, 1744)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Kim Hyun-soo

Suwon District Court Decision 2012No4923 decided February 7, 2013

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

The alteration of use under the Building Act includes not only a tangible alteration of use of a building, but also a continuous use by a successor to a building which has already been altered for that altered purpose (see Supreme Court Decisions 92Do1647 delivered on September 22, 1992; 2005Do4592 delivered on September 29, 2005, etc.).

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, the lower court was justifiable to have found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending

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

Justices Lee Sang-hoon (Presiding Justice)