2. Newly operated ○

3. ○○○

4. Ma○○

5. Stambed ○

6. Track ○

7. Kim○-○

Seoul District Housing Redevelopment Project Association

2. The claims of Plaintiff Jeon-○, Ma○, and Ma○ are dismissed, respectively.

3. The costs of litigation incurred between the Plaintiff’s New○○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, and ○○ and the Defendant are assessed against the Defendant. The costs of litigation incurred between the Plaintiff’s Jeon○○, Do○, Do○, and Kim○ and the Defendant are assessed against the Plaintiff’s Jeon○, Do○, and Kim○.

(1) The defendant, on February 16, 2006, designated as a district for housing redevelopment improvement project pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter referred to as the "Do Government Act"), shall be 440 square meters in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Dongdaemun-gu, 440 - Japan, 152, 20 square meters in size on September 16, 2006

In order to implement a housing redevelopment improvement project conducted as a project implementation district, it is a housing redevelopment improvement project partnership approved on October 2, 2006 and approved on June 29, 2007.

(2) The Plaintiffs owned, and actually used, all or part of the real estate located in the instant rearrangement zone as follows. They completed their resident registration at the real estate location or their lessees. In addition, the status of the use of the real estate investigated by the Defendant is as listed below.

A person shall be appointed.

* Kim ○ acquired the ownership of the above real estate on May 31, 2007, and Plaintiff Park ○ on March 11, 2008

A person shall be appointed.

From the beginning, the above real estate was transferred.

(3) The defendant, on July 11, 2007, posted the period of application for parcelling-out on July 12, 2007 to August 11, 2007, on the shipbuilding day notice, and received a request for parcelling-out from its members until August 31, 2007.

(4) Since each of the instant real estate owned by the Defendant is a neighborhood living facility on the building sale ledger, the Plaintiffs do not constitute a house under Article 24 (1) 1 of the former Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Maintenance of Urban and Residential Environments (amended by Ordinance No. 4675 of July 30, 2008; hereinafter referred to as the “former Ordinance on the Maintenance of Urban and Residential Environments”), and established a management and disposition plan to sell a commercial building which is not a multi-family housing to the Plaintiffs, and was authorized by the head of Dongdaemun-gu on May 22, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”).

[Ground of Recognition] Unstrifed Facts, Gap 1-11, Eul 1 and Eul 2, each of the statements and videos (including numbers)

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Party’s assertion

(1) The plaintiffs' assertion

Since the plaintiffs actually use all or part of the real estate of this case for residential purpose regardless of the purpose in the public record, the real estate of this case constitutes a house defined in the lawsuit of Article 24 (1) 1 of the old Maintenance Ordinance (the building actually being used for residential purpose) but the disposition of this case excluding the plaintiffs from the objects of multi-family housing unit sale is unlawful.

(2) The defendant's assertion

The type of the building is classified according to the use of the building indicated in the public register. The real estate of this case is all neighborhood living facilities, and the building being used for residential purposes is "the building actually used for residential purposes" among the existing unauthorized buildings. Thus, the real estate of this case does not fall under the house (the existing unauthorized building and the building being actually used for residential purposes) under Article 24 (1) 1 of the former Ordinance on the Maintenance regardless of which usage is actually used for any purpose.

(b) the relevant provisions;

(1) Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Improvement of Urban and Residential Environments (amended by Ordinance No. 4675 of July 30, 2008)

Article 24 (Those, etc. Eligible for Sale of Housing Redevelopment Projects)

(1) Persons eligible for parcelling-out of multi-family housing constructed for a housing redevelopment project pursuant to Article 52 (1) 3 of the Decree shall be the owners of land, etc. falling under any of the following subparagraphs as of the base date of the government disposal plan:

1. Houses among the previous buildings (including the existing unauthorized buildings and the buildings actually used for residence);

person who owns it;

Seoul Metropolitan Government Ordinance on the Improvement of Urban and Residential Environments (Enforcement on July 30, 2008)

Article 24 (Those, etc. Eligible for Sale of Housing Redevelopment Projects)

(1) Persons eligible for parcelling-out of multi-family housing constructed for a housing redevelopment project pursuant to Article 52 (1) 3 of the Decree shall be the owners of land, etc. falling under any of the following subparagraphs as of the base date of the government disposal plan:

1. Houses among the previous buildings (including the existing unauthorized buildings which are actually used for residential purposes;

(C) the owner of the property;

C. Determination

(1) The purpose of the Housing Redevelopment Project is to improve urban environment and the quality of residential life, as a project implemented to improve residential environment in an area where infrastructure for rearrangement is good, but where the worn-out and inferior buildings are concentrated. However, since a person who owns a house among the previous buildings loses a house which is the basis of living due to such housing redevelopment project, the Do Government Act and the Enforcement Decree of the Do Government Act prescribe that the apartment unit shall be eligible for sale in order to guarantee the benefit of the previous owner of a house in the above case.

(2) However, Article 24 (1) 1 of the former Ordinance on the Maintenance and Improvement (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24 (1) of the former Act provides that the owner of a house (existingless building and a building used for actual residence) among the previous buildings shall be eligible for the allocation of apartment houses B. Article 24 (1) 1 of the amended Ordinance on the Maintenance and Improvement (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24 (1) of the former Ordinance on the Maintenance and Improvement (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24 (1) of the previous building) shall be defined as a "person with limited liability," and "existing unauthorized building actually used for residential purpose" shall be separately protected from the house under Article 2 (1) of the Act on the Construction, and the title of the housing maintenance and improvement in the quality of residential life of its members shall be deemed to be a building actually used for residential purpose, regardless of the purpose of the public register.

(3) However, in a case where a part of a building was used for a public register ( neighborhood living facilities) and the remainder is actually used for a residential purpose, regardless of the area of the building being used for each purpose, if the main purpose of the building is not a residential purpose, the function of the building for its original purpose is not lost, and thus, it cannot be deemed as a building actually being used for a residential purpose (in this case, the defendant sells a commercial building to its members to guarantee their right to the main purpose of the building).

(4) In this case, the Plaintiff’s new ○○○○, head of ○○, and Gab○○ (Article 9(5) of the Defendant’s Articles of Incorporation provides that when the rights of a partner are transferred, the rights of the partner shall be deemed to be changed to the person who acquired the rights of the partner. Thus, the Plaintiff’s Parkboo shall be deemed to have succeeded to the status of the member of Kim○○○, and each real estate owned by the former Dob○ is a neighborhood living facility for public use, but is actually being used for residential purposes, and thus, the said Plaintiffs constitute the owner of the building that is actually used for residential purposes. Accordingly, the part of the instant disposition regarding the said Plaintiffs, excluding apartment houses, is unlawful.

(5) Each part of the real estate owned by Plaintiff Jeon Soo-○, Do○, and Kim Il-○ is used for residential purposes, but part of the remaining part is used for neighborhood living facilities (laundry site, health center, warehouse), and since the part used for residential purposes cannot be deemed as the main part of each real estate owned by the said Plaintiffs, the said Plaintiffs do not constitute the owner of “building actually being used for residential purposes.” Therefore, among the disposition of this case, the part of the disposition of this case, which determined the above Plaintiffs as eligible for the sale of commercial buildings, excluding those subject to the sale of multi-family housing, is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Thus, since the claims of the plaintiff Da-○, Do-○, Do-○, Do-○, and Do-○ are well-grounded, each claims of the plaintiff Do-○, Do-○, Do-○, and Do-○ are accepted. The claims of the plaintiff Do-○, Do-○

this decision is delivered with the order of the court.

Judge Cho Chang-young

Judges Equitable: