All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the records, the lower court’s determination that the steel structure installed by Defendant A constitutes “building” under the Building Act, and that Defendant A’s act of building construction to increase the floor area by integrating the existing building constitutes “extension of building” under the Building Act is justifiable. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the building.

2. The application of the penal provisions of Articles 110 and 11 of the Building Act with respect to the applicable provisions of the same Act to Defendant A is limited to certain business owners such as the owner and the construction executor, while the provision of Article 112(3) and (4) of the same Act is extended to the person who actually executes the relevant business in order to ensure the effectiveness of the above penal provisions when there is a person who is not a business owner but actually executes the relevant business, thereby expanding the person subject to the application to the person who actually executes the relevant business in order to ensure the effectiveness of the above penal provisions. In a case where such person commits a violation of the above penal provisions with respect to the pertinent business, the punishment provision for the offender

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 95Do2870 Decided July 15, 199, Supreme Court Decision 2003Do3984 Decided December 22, 2005, Supreme Court Decision 2008Do9476 Decided February 12, 2009, etc.). According to the evidence duly adopted by the first instance court maintained by the lower court, Defendant A is not in the position of “owner” who is the actual representative of the Defendant B Co., Ltd., the owner of the building, but is obviously in the actual execution of the construction without permission, so it is clear that Defendant A is an actual execution of the construction without permission, and thus, Articles 110 and 11 of the Building Act are subject to Article 112(3) of the same Act.

However, the court below omitted Article 112 (3) of the Building Act from among the applicable provisions of law to Defendant A.