[1] Whether it can be a ground for rejection of an application for a building permit, which deliberated upon a building as inappropriate by the building committee (negative)

[2] The case holding that the construction of a general lodging facility does not constitute a case where a building of a building of substantially inappropriate use is constructed in light of the current status of neighboring land and land

[1] The ground that the building committee deliberated the building in question as inappropriate cannot reject the application for the building permit.

[2] The case holding that the construction of a general lodging facility does not constitute a case where a building with a significantly inappropriate purpose is constructed in light of the current status of neighboring land and land

[1] Articles 4 and 8(4) of the former Building Act (amended by Act No. 5895 of Feb. 8, 1999); Articles 5, 8(6)1 and 8(3) of the former Building Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 16284 of Apr. 30, 199); Articles 4 and 8(4) of the former Building Act (amended by Act No. 5895 of Feb. 8, 199); Articles 5, 8(6)1 and 3 of the former Building Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 16284 of Apr. 30, 199)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 97Nu7400 delivered on April 28, 1998

Sousan Co., Ltd. (Attorney Lee Jae-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Guang-si Market

Seoul High Court Decision 97Gu30389 delivered on February 4, 1998

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the plaintiff's application for construction permission of the general accommodation facilities of the first and sixth stories above the land of this case is identical to the case that the defendant rejected as a result of the deliberation by the provincial construction committee, and that the land of this case is not subject to the new use permission of the previous Building Act (amended by Act No. 4919 of Jan. 5, 1995, Act No. 5895 of Feb. 8, 199; hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), Article 8 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14891 of Dec. 30, 1995; hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Decree"), and it cannot be deemed that the new use permission of the neighboring building is inappropriate to protect residents' natural landscape and to newly construct the adjacent building site or to newly construct the urban landscape of this case for the reason that the new use permission of this case cannot be changed to the temporary use permission of the new high school.

In light of the records and relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the requirements for building permission. The ground of appeal cannot be accepted.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Seo Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)