[1] Whether a disposition under Article 91 of the Housing Act shall be lawful in order to establish a violation of Article 98 subparagraph 11 of the Housing Act (affirmative)

[2] Whether the council of occupants' representatives constitutes "occupants" and "managing body" under Article 42 (1) and (2) of the Housing Act (negative)

[1] Article 91 and Article 98 subparagraph 11 of the Housing Act / [2] Article 42 (1) and (2) of the Housing Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2007No178 Decided April 26, 2007

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In accordance with Article 91 of the Housing Act, if a person who has been ordered to suspend construction, restore to the original state, or take other necessary measures by an administrative agency in violation of such order, such disposition or order should be legitimate in order to punish him/her under Article 98 subparagraph 11 of the Housing Act, and even if such order is not null and void as a matter of course, a violation of Article 98 subparagraph 11 of the Housing Act cannot be established as long as it is recognized as illegal.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the court below affirmed the facts as stated in its reasoning based on the evidence of employment, and affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance that acquitted the defendant on the ground that there is no evidence to support that the council of occupants' representatives constitutes a person who is provided with a house, the owner of a house, or the owner of a house, and the spouse and lineal ascendants or descendants representing the owner of the house under Article 2 subparagraph 10 of the Housing Act; thus, the "occupant" under the Housing Act does not include the scope of occupants; the management body under the Housing Act refers to an autonomous management body or a housing management operator organized by the council of occupants' representatives; and otherwise, the council of occupants' representatives has no other evidence to support that the council of occupants' representatives constitutes a person who is a principal under Article 42 (1) and (2) of the Housing Act; and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there is no violation

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)