The meaning and criteria for determining the owner of an unauthorized building where the articles of incorporation of the Housing Improvement Development Cooperative is granted to the owner of an unauthorized building separate from the owner of land and building.

The articles of incorporation of the Housing Improvement Development Cooperatives provide that the owner of a land within the redevelopment project district and a building who owns an unauthorized building meeting certain requirements shall be qualified as a cooperative member only if he/she proves that the building is owned by the owner of the land and the building is not qualified as a cooperative member. In light of the form of the articles of incorporation that separates the owner of an unauthorized building with respect to the qualification of a cooperative member from the owner of the unauthorized building, the preservation registration registration is practically impossible. In light of the form of the articles of incorporation that separates the owner of the unauthorized building from the owner of the permitted building, the actual owner of the unauthorized building shall be construed to be qualified as a cooperative member. In the case of an unauthorized building transferred before and after the transfer of the unauthorized building, the final transferee shall be deemed to have acquired the qualification as a cooperative member. In principle, the determination of whether the building is a de facto owner shall not be made by comprehensively taking into account the details of the acquisition of the building without permission, the occupancy and use relationship, the registration of the ownership register, and whether the building was registered as a cooperative member.

Article 186 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Housing Improvement and Redevelopment Cooperatives in Zone 6 1

Defendant’s Intervenor (Attorney Kang Jae-sik, Counsel for the defendant’s intervenor)

Seoul High Court Decision 92Na68327 delivered on July 14, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The articles of incorporation of the Housing Improvement Development Cooperatives provide that the owner of a land within the redevelopment project district and a building who owns an unauthorized building meeting certain requirements shall be qualified as a cooperative member only if he/she proves that the building is owned by the owner of the land and the building is not qualified as a cooperative member. In light of the provisions of the articles of incorporation that separates the owner of an unauthorized building with respect to the qualification of a cooperative member from the owner of the unauthorized building, the preservation registration registration is practically impossible, and the ownership of the unauthorized building shall be divided into the owner of the permitted building. In light of the provisions of the articles of incorporation that separates the owner of the unauthorized building from the owner of the permitted building, the actual owner of the unauthorized building shall be deemed to be qualified as a cooperative member. In cases where an unauthorized building was transferred before the transfer of the unauthorized building and the final transferee uses the building as a cooperative member, the final transferee shall be deemed to have acquired the qualification as a cooperative member. In this case, the determination of whether the building is a de facto owner shall be made by comprehensively considering the circumstances leading to the acquisition of the building without permission, the ownership, the ownership.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the owner of an unauthorized building stipulated as one of the members' qualifications in Article 7 of the articles of association of the defendant association refers to the actual owner of the building without permission. On January 4, 1979, the unauthorized building in the project district of the defendant association was originally constructed and resided in the non-party 1, and was transferred to the non-party 2, and the non-party 2 used the building as the de facto owner on the unauthorized Building Management Register, and sold it to the plaintiff around November 20, 1983, and thereafter, the plaintiff resided in the location of the building without permission and used it. The ownership on the unauthorized Building Management Register is still under the name of the non-party 1, the new owner of the building without permission, and it was not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the acquisition tax on the unauthorized Building Management Register, and the plaintiff did not own the land under the name of the non-party 1, the title of the non-party 1, which was changed to the non-party 2's name without permission.

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 Kim Jong-ju (Presiding Justice)