[1] In a case where several persons share land or buildings within a housing redevelopment project zone, whether co-owners are in the sole status of a housing redevelopment project association (negative)

[2] In a case where co-owners of co-owners of co-owned housing seek confirmation against each of the co-owners of a housing redevelopment project association as to the status of a sole partner, the case holding that the above co-owners are merely the co-owners of each of the underground floors of each of the above co-owners and the whole co-owners of each of the pertinent co-owned parts are only one

[1] Articles 19(1) and 48(7) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 9444 of Feb. 6, 2009); Article 52(1)3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21679 of Aug. 11, 2009); Article 24(2)3 of the former Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Ordinance No. 4657 of Jul. 30, 2008); Article 7 of the Addenda of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Ordinance No. 430 of Nov. 10, 2005); each member of a multi-family housing redevelopment project association shall be deemed to be a co-owner of a housing redevelopment project or a housing redevelopment project, in principle, to allocate the land.

[2] In a case where co-owners of a building and land of a cooperative house seek confirmation against the redevelopment and rearrangement project association that they are in the status of sole partners, the case holding that each co-owner of the above building's underground floor has a structure that allows each household to carry on an independent residential life from the construction stage to the construction stage, used each household as an independent residential house, and acquired each of the above households by means of the registration of shares before the introduction of the multi-family house system, and the articles of association of the relevant housing redevelopment and rearrangement project association stipulate the same contents as Article 19 of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 9444 of Feb. 6, 2009) as to the qualifications of members of the co-owners of the housing redevelopment and rearrangement project association, and the above co-owners who actually own each of the corresponding households of the above building' underground floor are not in the status of sole partners or co-owners of the building as members of each of the other co-owners.

[1] Articles 19(1) and 48(7) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 944 of Feb. 6, 2009), Article 52(1)3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21679 of Aug. 11, 2009), Article 24(2)3 of the former Seoul Metropolitan Government Ordinance on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Ordinance No. 4657 of Jul. 30, 2008) (see current Article 27(2)3), Article 7(3) of the former Ordinance on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Ordinance No. 430 of Dec. 30, 203) (amended by Ordinance No. 430 of Nov. 10, 2005) / [2] Article 248(7(19 of the former Seoul Metropolitan Government Ordinance No.

Plaintiff 1 and six others (Attorney Kim Si-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Man-ri Second Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association (Law Firm Square, Attorneys Yu-hee et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2009Nu16789 decided January 26, 2010

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

In light of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the court below determined that the plaintiffs have a benefit to seek confirmation against the defendant partnership in order to remove existing risks and omissions in their rights or legal status, since the plaintiffs are affected by the rights and obligations of the plaintiffs as a single member, and the defendant partnership denies the status of the plaintiffs as a single member, based on whether the plaintiffs are either a single member of the defendant partnership or a single member of the other co-owners of each building of this case, etc. of this case.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interests in the lawsuit

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

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 of Feb. 6, 2009; hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) provides that “Members of a rearrangement project shall be landowners, etc., but if ownership and superficies of land or buildings belong to several co-owners, one representative of them shall be deemed members.” Article 48(7) of the Urban Improvement Act and Article 52(1)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21679 of Aug. 11, 2009) delegated by Article 52(1)3 of the former Ordinance on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Ordinance No. 4657 of Jul. 30, 2008; hereinafter “Ordinance on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents”) shall be deemed to have been subject to parcelling-out permission or multi-family house under Article 24(19).3101.

In full view of the above provisions and the fact that members of a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project association have the right to apply for parcelling-out for multi-family housing constructed by a housing redevelopment project, voting rights at the general meeting of the association members, and the right to select officers of an association, etc., in case of joint ownership by several persons of land or buildings within a housing redevelopment project zone, in principle, only one person shall be granted to all the joint owners. However, with respect to the eligibility for parcelling-out of multi-family housing constructed by a housing redevelopment project, one person shall be given to each household as co-owners of multi-family housing or de facto multi-family house meeting the specific requirements prescribed in

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below, each household of each underground floor of the building of this case, which is a cooperative house under Article 4 (2) of the former Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Implementation of Housing Improvement and Redevelopment Project (amended by Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance No. 2353 of May 7, 1988), has a structure that allows a person to carry on an independent residential life for each household from the construction stage to the construction stage, and has been actually used as an independent residential area. On April 21, 1990, the plaintiffs had a share registration before the introduction of the multi-family house system, and each household has been taken over by the method of transferring the share registration. Article 9 of the articles of incorporation of the defendant association provides that the qualifications of the members of the association shall be the same as Article 19 of the Urban Improvement Act, and otherwise does not grant a person to co-owners

In light of the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the plaintiffs who actually own each of the corresponding households of each underground floor of the building of this case are the co-owners of the de facto multi-family house as stipulated in Article 7 of the Addenda to the Maintenance Ordinance, and have the eligibility for parcelling-out by household. However, as long as the plaintiffs are merely the co-owners of each underground floor of the building of this case, all the other co-owners of each of the relevant co-owners as well as the other co-owners of each

Nevertheless, the lower court determined otherwise, that each of the buildings of this case is corresponding to the de facto multi-family house as stipulated in Article 7 of the Addenda of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Housing, and that the Plaintiffs, co-owners of this case, become eligible for parcelling-out by household, respectively. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on

3. Conclusion

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 Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)