(b) requirements to be excluded from those subject to excess ownership charges, for which ownership is permitted by the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites;

(c) Whether the land on which a third party’s unauthorized building is constructed falls under the category of “unrealistic building site” as provided in Article 20 (1) 3 of the same Act;

B. In full view of the purport of Articles 8, 14(1), 19, and 20(1)1 and 8 of the same Act, and Article 26(1)5 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13882 of May 10, 1993), a corporation, in principle, is unable to own a housing site and imposes excessive ownership charges on its own. However, in certain cases, such as permission for the acquisition of a housing site or final and conclusive judgment, it shall be exceptionally permitted to own a housing site, but if so, it shall be excluded from the imposition of excessive ownership charges only when developing the housing site in accordance with the permitted contents or use plan. The same applies to a housing site owned by a corporation at the time of the enforcement of the same Act, which is deemed to have obtained permission for the acquisition of a housing site pursuant to Article 2(1) of the Addenda of the same Act, and such housing site shall also be excluded from the imposition of excess ownership charges.

(c) If an unauthorized building is constructed on land, it shall be deemed one of the requirements for the application of Article 20(1)3 of the same Act, and shall not be deemed as a site defined in Articles 2(1)1(b) and 3 of the same Act, and even if the owners or tenants of the building refuse to remove the building, such reason shall not be deemed as a case where it is practically impossible to construct another building, which is another one of the requirements for the application of Article 20(1)3 of the same Act, because it is not the physical reason inherent in

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. On the first ground for appeal

The court below held that the land in this case owned by the plaintiff clan is an unincorporated association that constitutes a site subject to the imposition of excess ownership charges for the housing site (hereinafter referred to as "charges"), since Article 4 of the Act and Article 6 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Site (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13882, May 10, 193; hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Decree") are not provided for as one of the organizations or organizations excluded from the application of the Act, while the plaintiff clan is treated as the same as a juristic person in relation to the ownership and restriction of the housing site under Article 8 of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Site as an unincorporated Association (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), the court below held that the above recognition and judgment of the court below are just and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles or the lack of reasons. The arguments are without merit.

2. On the second ground for appeal

In full view of the purport of Articles 8, 14(1), 19(1), and 20(1)1 and 8 of the Act, and Article 26(1)5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, a corporation cannot own a housing site in principle and imposes charges on the housing site owned by it. However, in certain cases, such as permission for the acquisition of a housing site or a final and conclusive judgment, it shall be exceptionally allowed to own the housing site, but in such cases, it shall be excluded from the subject of charges for the development of the housing site according to the permitted contents or plan for the use. This applies to the housing site owned by the corporation as at the time of the enforcement of the Act, which is deemed to have obtained permission for the acquisition of a housing site, and it shall be excluded from the subject of charges only if the housing site should be used and developed in accordance with the plan for use submitted thereafter pursuant to Article 2(2) of the Addenda of the Act.

In the same purport, the court below is justified in holding that the land of this case is deemed permitted to own the plaintiff clan pursuant to Article 2 (1) of the Addenda of the Act, but it does not meet the requirements for exclusion from the imposition of charges under Article 20 (1) of the Act and Article 26 (1) 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, and it does not constitute a site for exclusion from the imposition of charges, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles such as the theory of lawsuit. There is no reason

3. On the third ground for appeal

If an unauthorized building is constructed on the land of this case as alleged by the plaintiff, it cannot be viewed as a site defined in Article 2 subparagraph 1 (b) of the Act and Article 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, as one of the requirements for the application of the above provision of the Act, and even if the owners or tenants refuse to remove the building, it cannot be viewed as a case where construction is impossible because the reason is not the physical reason inherent in the land itself, and therefore, it cannot be viewed as a case where another requirement for the application of the above provision of the Act is applied, and therefore, the land of this case does not meet the requirements under Article 20 (1) 3 of the Act, which provides for the housing site excluded from the imposition of charges. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is just and there is no error of law, such as a theory of

4. 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 Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)