1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that, among the housing sites subject to the imposition of excess ownership charges of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "charges"), the charges for the same (number 1 omitted), the same (number 2 omitted), the same (number 3 omitted), and the same (number 4 omitted) were erroneously imposed on the plaintiff other than the above non-party among the housing sites subject to the imposition of the charges of this case, the same (number 5 omitted) and the same (number 6 omitted) are owned by the plaintiff or the same (number 1 omitted), the same (number 2 omitted), the same (number 3 omitted), and the same (number 4 omitted) are owned by the plaintiff, while Article 21 (3) of the Act on the Ownership of the above housing Site (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") should have imposed the charges of this case on the plaintiff in proportion to the total amount of the charges imposed on the plaintiff's housing site price of each of the above housing sites in proportion to the charges imposed on the non-party's share price of each of this case.

2. Article 21(3) of the Act provides that in the case of a housing site by household, the subject of the charge exceeds the upper limit of the ownership of each household (Article 19(1)), where there are not less than two members of the housing site in question, the subject of the charge is obligated to pay the charge in proportion to the price of the housing site. The "price of the housing site" under this provision refers to the total price of the housing site owned by a member of a household, that is, the housing site owned by a member of a household, that is, the housing site excluded from the subject of the charge because it belongs to a household within the upper limit of the ownership of a household, and it is evident that it does not mean only the price of the housing

Nevertheless, the court below, however, excluded some of the housing sites owned by the plaintiff who is excluded from the subject of the charge because they belong to the upper limit of the household among the total housing sites owned by the plaintiff and his wife composed of one household, calculated the price of the housing sites subject to the imposition of this case, and calculated the reasonable amount of the charge to be paid by the plaintiff in proportion to the price of each housing site owned by the plaintiff and his wife. The court below erred in the misapprehension and application of Article 21 (3) of the Act.

However, if the court below calculates the amount of legitimate charges to be paid by the plaintiff due to the above illegality of the judgment below, it is clear in the record that all housing sites belonging to each household and excluded from the subject of charges are the plaintiff's ownership and the amount of legitimate charges to be paid by the plaintiff is much increased than the amount recognized by the court below, and therefore, it cannot be accepted to discuss this issue.

In addition, the "price of the housing site" under Article 21 (3) of the Act is not the price of the housing site subject to the imposition under Article 23 of the Act, but the price of the housing site after the application of the imposition period and the imposition rate, and it cannot be accepted.

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

Justices Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)