Whether land excluded from the imposition of charges constitutes a housing site for each household as provided in the proviso of Article 20 (1) 4 of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites.

In full view of the provisions of Articles 1, 20(1)1, and 18 of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites, and Article 21-2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13882, May 10, 1993), it shall be interpreted that the housing site excluded from the imposition of charges due to the restriction on construction permission by an administrative agency pursuant to the relevant provisions such as the Building Act does not constitute the housing site for each household under the proviso of Article 20(1)4 of the same Act for the period of exclusion.

Article 20 (1) 4 of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites and Article 21-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the former Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Jeon-gu et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant

The head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 93Gu22892 delivered on December 1, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 7 (1) of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") provides that the upper limit of ownership of a housing site by household shall be 660 square meters (paragraph 1), 90 square meters (paragraph 2), 1,320 square meters (paragraph 3) shall be 1,320 square meters (paragraph 3), and Article 19 of the Act provides that the upper limit of ownership of a housing site by household exceeding the upper limit of ownership by household (paragraph 1) shall be one of the housing sites imposing excess ownership charges (hereinafter referred to as "charges"), and Article 20 (1) of the Act provides that construction of a housing site exceeding the area under the provisions of each subparagraph of Article 7 (1) of the Act shall be impossible under the Building Act and other relevant Acts and subordinate statutes: Provided, That it shall be limited to cases where a housing site by household is 1/4).

However, in full view of the provisions of Articles 1 and 20(1)1 and 18 of the Act, and Article 21-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13882, May 10, 1993), it shall be interpreted that the housing site excluded from the imposition of charges due to the restriction on construction permission by an administrative agency pursuant to the related provisions, such as the Building Act, does not constitute the housing site for each household under the proviso of Article 20(1)4 of the Act during the period of exclusion.

In the above purport, the court below should interpret that the housing site for which a construction permit application has not been rejected and for which a construction restriction measure has not been cancelled does not fall under the "housing site" under the proviso of Article 20 (1) 4 of the Act, and it shall be rejected on the ground that the application for a construction permit application for the housing site Nos. 2 and 3 at the time of original sale owned by the plaintiff was in force under Article 44 (2) of the Building Act (amended by Act No. 4381 of May 31, 191). Thus, the above housing site does not fall under the "Housing site" under the proviso of Article 44 (2) of the Building Act until the construction restriction measure is terminated, and therefore, it is just that the above housing site is excluded from the "housing site" under the main sentence of Article 20 (1) 4 of the Act, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles of the Act on Ownership of the Housing Site, which points out the theory of lawsuit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all 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 Chocheon-sik (Presiding Justice)