A. In a case where other individuals or organizations acquire a housing site from a country, institution, or organization excluded from the application of the Act pursuant to Article 4 of the Act on the Ownership of the Housing Site, whether such housing site is subject to the same Act even if it is used for the same purpose and form

B. Whether an annexed parking lot under the Parking Lot Act, which is a land excluded from the imposition of excess ownership charges pursuant to Article 3 subparagraph 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the former Act on the Ownership of the Housing Site, includes a parking lot that meets the requirements of an annexed parking lot, regardless of the building permit, etc. before the

A. Article 4 of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites provides that Article 4 of the same Act does not apply to housing sites owned by the State, local governments, Korea Land Development Corporation, the Korea National Housing Corporation, or other government-invested institutions or public organizations prescribed by Presidential Decree, taking into account the special status and functions of the State and the above agencies and organizations, so even if other individuals or organizations take over housing sites from the State, government-invested institutions or public organizations listed above, they are used in the same manner as they were used before taking over the housing sites, such housing sites

B. According to Article 2 subparag. 1(b) and Article 19 subparag. 2 of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites, Article 3 subparag. 5 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13882 of May 10, 193), Article 19 of the Parking Lot Act, and Article 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the amount of excess ownership shall be imposed on land, the land category of which is a land owned by a corporation, on which a permanent building is not constructed among the land, and among them, the attached parking lots under the Parking Lot Act, which is within the minimum standard area under Article 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, shall be excluded from its imposition. Thus, in order to achieve the legal purpose of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites, the amount of excess ownership shall be imposed on the land, the land category of which is not a permanent building among the land owned by the corporation, but which does not conflict with the purpose of the Act.

(a)(c)Article 4, Article 2 subparagraph 1(b) and Article 19 subparagraph 2 of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites; Article 3 subparagraph 5 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13882, May 10, 193); Article 19 of the Parking Lot Act; Article 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the Parking Lot Act;

B. Supreme Court Decision 94Nu118 delivered on June 24, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 2177)

Chang River Housing Co., Ltd. and two others, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee)

The head of Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 93Gu24164 delivered on August 23, 1994

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. The fact that Article 4 of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") does not apply to housing sites owned by the State, local governments, the Korea Land Development Corporation, the Korea National Housing Corporation, or other government-invested institutions or public organizations as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, takes into account the special status and functions of the State, agencies, organizations, etc., and thus, even if other individuals or organizations acquire housing sites from the State, government-invested institutions, or public organizations listed above, they are used in the same manner as they were used before the transfer, the housing site shall be governed by the Act. The judgment of the court below to the same purport

2. Meanwhile, according to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that the part of the site of the instant apartment among the instant land used as a parking lot in apartment residents and the management office is not subject to the imposition of an attached parking lot excluded from the housing site, on the ground that there is no legal basis to regard a part of the site of the instant apartment as an attached parking lot under the Parking Lot Act, on the grounds that the instant apartment was first stipulated in the Parking Lot Act promulgated on April 17, 1979, and there is no transitional provision regarding the standards for the annexed parking lot applicable to the building constructed prior to its enforcement.

However, according to Article 2 subparag. 1(b) and Article 19 subparag. 2 of the Act, Article 3 subparag. 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13882, May 10, 1993), Article 19 of the Parking Lot Act, and Article 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, etc., an excess share of ownership charges shall be imposed on land which is not constructed among land owned by a corporation, the land category of which is a site. Of them, land within the minimum standard area under Article 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the Parking Lot Act, which is an attached parking lot under the same Act, shall be excluded from its subject of imposition. In order to achieve the purpose of the Act (Article 1 of the Act), the imposition of excess share charges shall be imposed on land which is not constructed on a permanent building among land owned by a corporation, the land category of which is a site, and the imposition of charges on the parking lot shall be excluded from the imposition of the charges on the parking lot under Article 19 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of annexed parking lots excluded from the land stipulated in the Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)