[2] Whether the provision of Article 7 of the Addenda to the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, which is an exception to the principle of Article 48 (2) 6 of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, can be seen as the purpose of granting each individual member's status to co-owners of multi-family houses in case of parcelling-out to each household

1. Article 19(1) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 9444, Feb. 6, 2009; hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) provides that “Members of a rearrangement project shall be owners of land, etc. (in the case of a reconstruction project, limited to those who consent to a housing reconstruction project), but where ownership and superficies of land or buildings belong to several co-owners, one representative shall be deemed to be members.” Thus, if several multi-family houses corresponding to a detached house under the Building Act are co-owned, all of the co-owners shall be deemed to be one member in principle. Meanwhile, Article 48(7) of the former Urban Improvement Act and Article 52(1)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21679, Aug. 11, 2009; Article 19(1) of the Act provides that the members of a multi-family house and multi-family house shall not be owned by 19.

2. According to the facts and records established by the court below, on the ground of the 279-16 large scale 152 square meters in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, which was constructed on January 4, 1990 and approved for use on May 21, 1990, there were detached houses of the 1/6th floor and the 2nd floor (hereinafter “instant housing”). The plaintiffs own 1/6 shares among the instant housing, and the above site owned 2,533/15,20 shares, respectively, and the plaintiffs 5,6 own 2,534/15,20 shares, respectively, and Article 9(3) of the articles of incorporation of the defendant association provides that “if the ownership belongs to several co-ownership, it shall be deemed as one member representing the several co-ownership.”

Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the plaintiffs are co-owners of the housing of this case, and they are only one member under Article 19(1) of the Urban Improvement Act and Article 9(3) of the Articles of association of the defendant association, and they do not have the status of each member alone. Nevertheless, the court below determined otherwise that the housing of this case is a de facto multi-family house as provided in Article 7 of the Addenda of the Ordinance on the Maintenance and Improvement of the Housing ( December 30, 2003) and the plaintiffs are co-owners of the housing of this case. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the qualifications of members of the Housing Reconstruction Association under the Urban Improvement Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Young-chul (Presiding Justice)