A. Whether a land category on the public register is a housing site subject to regulation under the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites even if it is used for other purposes.

(b) The case reversing the judgment of the court below that the land on the public record is not a housing site under Article 2 subparagraph 1 (b) of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites due to the current status of use as a miscellaneous land;

A. The Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites provides that not only the land on which a house is constructed but also the land on which a permanent building is not constructed among the land whose land category is a building site under the provisions of the Cadastral Act, which provides that the land prescribed by the Presidential Decree is subject to the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites, regardless of the land category in the public register, if the determination of whether the land is a housing site under the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites according to the current status of use of the land is made, it would not lead to the promotion of disguised ownership of the housing site and ensure the effectiveness of the Act, and even if the land is used for other purposes, it can be easily used as a housing site without any particular procedure even if it is used for other purposes. In light of the above, even if the land on the public register is used for other purposes, such land shall be deemed as a housing site subject to the regulation under the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites.

(b) The case reversing the judgment of the court below that the land in the public record is not a housing site under Article 2 subparagraph 1 (b) of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Site under the current status of use as miscellaneous land where it is used as a facility site for a driving school for 30 years, and becomes an urban planning facility for a driving school after the base date of excess ownership charges.

Article 2 subparagraph 1 (b) of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites and Article 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the former Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites

Plaintiff 1 and 2 others, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

The head of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 93Gu13935 delivered on July 5, 1994

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the land category in the annexed list of the judgment below, including the land of this case, the category of which is "B" under the Cadastral Law, was changed to the land of this case from around 1969, and since the driving practice facilities installed on the land of this case owned by the plaintiffs as concrete with a thickness of approximately 13 cm on concrete on the surface of 30cc thick, and each of the above land was 18,381 cubic meters prior to the original Dong-gu, Gwangju-gu, the land category was changed to the land category only due to the implementation of the land readjustment project established around May 25, 1982, and since the land category was changed to the "B", the Minister of Home Affairs, the supervisory authority over the management of the cadastral record, and the land category of the annexed facilities, which is the land category of the land of this case, should not be deemed to be changed to the land category of the land of this case for the purpose of construction of urban planning facilities, and thus, the land category of this case was not changed to the land category.

However, in light of the fact that the Act provides not only the land on which a house is built in order to achieve the purpose of ensuring the stability and effectiveness of the residential life of the people by inducing the people to own the housing site properly and promoting the supply of the housing site (Article 2 subparagraph 1 (a) of the Act), but also the land on which a permanent building is not constructed among the land whose land category is a building site under the provisions of the Cadastral Act, and as prescribed by the Presidential Decree (Article 2 subparagraph 1 (b) of the Act, among the land whose land category is a building site is a building site under the same subparagraph (Article 2 subparagraph 1 (b) of the Act), and regardless of the land category on the public register, if the determination of whether a building site is a building site under the Act according to the current status of the use of the land is made, it would bring about the promotion of the disguised ownership of the housing site and make it impossible to secure the effectiveness of the Act. Even if the land on the public register is used for another purpose, it shall be deemed that the land still falls under the housing site subject to the regulation of the Act, and it shall not be deemed to be determined otherwise.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the housing site prescribed by the Act and thereby adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment, on the ground that whether the land is a housing site prescribed by the Act should be determined by the current status of its use regardless of the land category recorded in the public record, and that the disposition of imposition of charges in this case, which regarded the land as a housing site prescribed by the Act,

Therefore, 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 Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)