Whether the land can not be constructed solely because it is designated as an urban design area, and whether the land can not be constructed only with the neighboring land owner, and whether the land constitutes a “bridged site where de facto construction is impossible” as prescribed by the Housing Site Ownership Act.

In the case of a single construction which is not a joint development zone designated as an urban design zone under the Building Act for the purpose of promoting the urban function and aesthetic view, it shall not be entirely prohibited from construction because it is the land for which regulation is implemented by non-permission, etc., and in the case of a single construction which is not a joint development zone, it shall not be deemed to be a site where construction of housing is prohibited or substantially impossible under related Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Building Act and the Urban Planning Act, etc., which are stipulated in Article 20 (1) 3 of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Site solely on the ground that such consultation, etc. is not properly achieved because it is possible to jointly or independently

Article 20 (1) 3 of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites, Article 9-2 (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the former Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites (amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 527 of Jun. 12, 1993)

[Plaintiff, Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Han-chul, Attorneys Lee Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

[Judgment of the court below]

Attorney Kim Chang-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 93Gu10776 delivered on July 14, 1993

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

First, the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 are examined together.

The lower court, upon acquiring on October 21, 1987 and holding the Plaintiff as of June 1, 1992, determined that the Plaintiff’s application for the designation of an urban design district under Article 8-2 of the former Building Act (amended by Act No. 397 of May 31, 1991) was not possible due to the lack of consultation with the owner of the adjacent land, and that it is difficult for the Plaintiff to jointly develop the adjacent land as an urban design district under Article 8-2 of the former Building Act (amended by Act No. 4381 of May 31, 1991), even if construction is possible only in the case of joint development with each land of the ( Address 3 omitted), and ( Address 4 omitted), and that the Plaintiff’s application for the designation of an adjacent land under the Building Act was made impossible due to the lack of consultation with the owner of the adjacent land, and thus, it was difficult for the Plaintiff to comply with the Ordinance of the Seoul Metropolitan Government to jointly develop the urban design.

However, in the case of a single construction which is not a joint development zone designated as an urban design zone under the Building Act and which is not a joint development zone to induce development under the long-term comprehensive plan for the purpose of promoting the urban function and aesthetic view, the construction is not entirely prohibited because it is the land for which regulation is implemented by non-permission, etc., and if it conforms to the urban design standards, it is possible to jointly or independently construct through consultation, sale, exchange, etc. with neighboring land owners, and thus such consultation is not properly achieved, it cannot be deemed that the above land is a site where the construction of housing is prohibited or actually impossible under the related Acts and subordinate statutes such as the Building Act and the Urban Planning Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Nu20252, May 13, 1994).

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the interpretation and application of Article 20 (1) 3 of the above Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, on the ground that the land of this case was designated and publicly announced as an urban design area and the application for sole development was rejected without joint development consultation. Thus, the court below's decision that the land of this case was a site which is virtually impossible for construction.

Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-ju (Presiding Justice)