Requirements to be excluded from the imposition of excess ownership charges, which is deemed to have obtained permission, etc. for the acquisition of a housing site under Article 2 (1) of the Addenda to the Act on Ownership of the Housing Site

In full view of the purport of the provisions of Articles 7(1), 10(1), 14(1), 19, and 20(1)1 and 8 of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites, and Article 26(1)5 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, an individual cannot own a housing site exceeding the upper limit of the ownership by a household, and an excess ownership charges shall be imposed on a housing site owned in excess of the upper limit of the ownership by a household: Provided, That 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 in such cases, it shall be excluded from the imposition of excess ownership charges only when the housing site is used and developed in accordance with the permitted contents or plan for use, and such restriction shall also apply to a housing site owned by an individual at the time of the enforcement of the same Act, and thus, it shall be excluded from the imposition of excess ownership charges only in accordance with the plan for use, development, and imposition pursuant to Article 2(2) of the Addenda of the same Act.

Articles 7(1), 10(1), 14(1), 19, 20(1)1, and 20(1)8 of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites; Article 2(1) of the Addenda; Article 2(2) of the Addenda; Article 26(1)5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites

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

[Judgment of the court below]

The head of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 94Gu5764 delivered on December 7, 1994

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal on the land No. 4 of the judgment below

In full view of the purport of the provisions of Articles 7(1), 10(1), 14(1), 19, and 20(1)1 and 8 of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), and Article 26(1)5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites (hereinafter referred to as the “Enforcement Decree”), an individual cannot own a housing site beyond the upper limit of the ownership of each household, and an excess ownership charges (hereinafter referred to as the “charges”) shall be imposed on a housing site owned in excess of the upper limit of the ownership of each household. However, in certain cases, such as permission for the acquisition of a housing site or a final and conclusive judgment, it shall be exceptionally permitted to own a housing site, but it shall be excluded from the imposition of charges only when using and developing the housing site in accordance with the permitted contents or plan for use, and such housing site shall also be excluded from the imposition of charges pursuant to Article 2(1) of the Addenda of the Act.

In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that the land No. 4 in its decision is permitted to be owned by the plaintiff pursuant to Article 2 (1) of the Addenda of the Act, but it is required to be excluded from the object of imposition of charges as set forth in Article 20 (1) of the Act and Article 26 (1) 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, and that the land No. 4 in its decision does not fall under the land excluded from imposition of charges without the need for further determination as to whether it falls under Article 21-2 subparagraph 1 of the Enforcement Decree, and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as pointed out in the grounds of appeal. The grounds of appeal on this point cannot

2. As to the ground of appeal on the land Nos. 1 and 2 of the judgment below

The grounds of appeal are justifiable to have determined that part of the buildings on which part of the 1 and 2 land in the decision of the court below prior to subdivision was incorporated into an urban planning and was incorporated into a road, and that the disposal of the 1 and 2 land in the decision of the court below was practically impeded due to incomplete state of the buildings, and thus, the disposal of the 1 and 2 land in the decision of the court below was not constituted. Thus, a considerable period of time during the period during which such obstruction was obstructed shall be excluded from the imposition of charges. However, the above reasons do not fall under any of the items of the sites not subject to the imposition of charges under Article 26(1) of the Enforcement Decree of each subparagraph of Article 20(1) of the Act and Article 9-2(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff-Appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)