Whether Article 3 of the Gwanak-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Compensation for Unauthorized Building Maintenance Business is an exemplary provision stipulating the requirements for an unauthorized building to be subject to the application of the Gwanak-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Compensation for Unauthorized Building Maintenance Business and the methods

In light of the form, purport, etc. of Article 3 of the Gwanak-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Compensation for Unauthorized Building Maintenance Business, it is not sufficient that an unauthorized building was constructed before December 31, 1981 (in cases of a residential building with a total floor area of not more than 85 square meters, April 8, 1982) to be subject to the same Ordinance. As prescribed in each subparagraph of Article 3 of the same Ordinance, an unauthorized building shall not be deemed to have been registered in the ledger of Unauthorized Building as of December 31, 1981, or recorded in the second aerial photography in December 1981, or recorded in the second aerial photography in December 31, 1981, or a residential building with a total floor area of not more than 85 square meters as of December 31, 1981, it is not necessary to prove that the building was constructed before April 18, 1982.

Article 2 subparag. 4 (see current Article 8), and Article 20 (see current Article 14) of the former Urban Redevelopment Act (Amended by Act No. 5116, Dec. 29, 1995);

Supreme Court Decision 80Nu619 Decided December 8, 1981, Supreme Court Decision 87Nu217 Decided July 21, 1987 (Gong1987, 1414)

Plaintiff 1 and two others

4-2 District Housing Improvement and Redevelopment Cooperatives

Seoul High Court Decision 97Gu46537 delivered on August 13, 1998

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the facts duly admitted by the court below, Article 7 (1) of the articles of association of the defendant association provides that "the qualifications of members shall be the owners of land or buildings in the business area where the association implements, and the rights of ownership, superficies, etc. under paragraph (1) shall be stipulated in the Civil Act: Provided, That where a building is an unauthorized building subject to the Gwanak-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Compensation for Unauthorized Building Maintenance Business (hereinafter referred to as the "Ordinance on the Compensation") if it is an unauthorized building, its ownership shall be recognized as its members only if it proves its ownership." Article 3 of the Ordinance on Compensation provides that "the scope of unauthorized building subject to this Ordinance is as follows." Article 1 provides that "the building registered in the ledger of Unauthorized Building as of December 31, 1981 is defined as "the building registered in the ledger of Unauthorized Building as of December 31, 198," subparagraph 2 provides that "the building which was recorded in the second aerial photography of December 19, 1981," and subparagraph 3 provides that "the building was actually existing before 1984.8 square meters".

In light of the form, purport, etc. of the provision of Article 3 of the Compensation Ordinance, it is insufficient to say that an unauthorized building was constructed before December 31, 1981 (in the case of a residential building with a total floor area of not more than 85 square meters, April 8, 1982) to be subject to the compensation municipal ordinance. As prescribed by the subparagraphs of Article 3 of the Compensation Ordinance, an unauthorized building is registered in the ledger of an unauthorized Building as of December 31, 1981, or is recorded in the second aerial photography in 1981, or it is found that it existed before December 31, 1981, or that the building was not constructed without permission before December 197, 198, since it is proved that the Plaintiffs were recorded in the ledger of an unauthorized Building with the total floor area of not more than 85 square meters, or that the building was not constructed without permission before December 18, 198.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the status of an association member cannot be recognized on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the building of this case owned by the plaintiffs was registered in the unauthorized Building Register as of December 31, 1981, or recorded in the second aerial photography in the 1981, or had existed before December 31, 1981, such as the payment of property tax. In light of the above legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is just (According to the records, the plaintiffs owned the building of this case within the redevelopment project district of the defendant, and the building of this case was constructed before December 31, 1981, and the unauthorized Building of this case satisfies the requirements provided for in each subparagraph of Article 3 of the above Compensation Ordinance, but there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the allegation of the plaintiff or the defendant's confession, nor in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the facts alleged in the ground for appeal, as otherwise alleged in the ground for appeal.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the 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 Seo Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)