The case holding that since the building which completed the registration of shares by household with the building permit obtained as a detached house before the multi-family house system was introduced falls under the multi-family house in fact, the independent residential space for each household constitutes one person eligible for parcelling-out; and

The case holding that even if several persons co-own the relevant building, the independent residential space for each household constitutes one person who becomes the object of parcelling-out, even though the building constitutes a multi-family house and actually constitutes a multi-family house, which has completed the registration of shares by household with the building permit obtained before the multi-family house system is introduced.

Articles 19(1), 48(1) and (7) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, Article 52(1)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, Article 24(1)1 and (2)3 of the Seoul Metropolitan Government Ordinance on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, Article 7 of the Addenda ( December 30, 2003

Plaintiff 1 and 20 others (Law Firm Bag, Attorney Kim Jong-hoon, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association (Attorney Lee Dong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

July 10, 2008

1. The part of the management and disposal plan approved by the head of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on March 20, 2008 that the defendant determined the plaintiffs as joint buyers shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The text of paragraph (1) is as follows.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 29, 2005, the head of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government was designated and publicly notified as a housing redevelopment project zone for the area for the housing redevelopment project for the Maamamban-dong 611, 58,233.20 square meters, and the Defendant was the project implementer to implement the housing redevelopment project after obtaining authorization for the establishment on August 21, 2006 from the head of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City head of the Gu, with the authorization for the implementation of the project on August 30, 2007.

B. The plaintiffs are all members of the defendant's association with respect to the ownership of the building and its appurtenant land owned by the plaintiffs, and the plaintiff 11 was appointed from non-party 1 and non-party 2, who are co-inheritors, 5/7 of the share of 39.15 of the building of this case and the aggregate of the shares of 13.05/15 of the share of the building of this case and their appurtenant land, and the plaintiff 21 was appointed from non-party 3 and non-party 4 of this case with respect to the aggregate of shares of 6.805/305 of the building of this case and 67/100 of the aggregate of shares of the annexed land as representative members

본문내 포함된 표 ？ 원고 지번 건축물내역 공유지분(대지권) 또는 소유면적 1 원고 1 응암동 (지번 생략) 대 169.3㎡ 벽돌조 슬래브 위 기와지붕 2층 협동주택 1층 82.31㎡, 2층 82.31㎡, 지하실 82.31㎡ 중 제2층 제나호 82.31㎡, 지하실 42.58㎡(1981. 2. 26. 신축, 이하 ‘이 사건 제1건물’이라 한다) 건물 37.38분의 12.88, 토지 169.3분의 11.65 2 원고 2 건물 37.78분의 12.45, 토지 169.3분의 26.66

(hereinafter referred to as "mark omitted")

C. The plaintiffs filed an application for parcelling-out with the purport that "the building of this case constitutes a multi-family house for which the registration of shares was completed for each household, and thus, the individual unit is individually sold to each household." However, the defendant decided on the management and disposal plan including the contents of the management and disposal plan to be jointly sold with other co-owners of each of the buildings of this case on the ground that "the plaintiffs are not co-owners of each of the buildings of this case, but co-owners of each of the buildings of this case, and obtained authorization from the head of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on March 208 (

D. Each of the instant buildings has a separate entrance by household of each co-owner (Provided, That Plaintiff 11 is owned with Nonparty 1 and 2, and Plaintiff 21 is owned with Nonparty 3 and 4 as well as with Nonparty 4) and consists of an independent residential space in which toilets, kitchen, boiler, water supply, and independent residential space capable of independent living. Property tax, urban planning tax, local education tax, etc. on each of the instant buildings are imposed separately by household.

E. The building Nos. 1 through 14 of this case was a cooperative house, and the building Nos. 15 through 17 of this case was newly constructed with each building permit obtained, and entered as a co-ownership of shares in one building on the registry, and each co-owner of each building of this case was transferred their shares. Co-owner of each building of this case has exclusively occupied a specific residential space classified as above, and transferred his ownership in a specific residential space by means of transferring his co-ownership regardless of other co-owners.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry and video of Gap evidence 1 to 22 (including provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

Each building of this case constitutes a de facto multi-family house which has completed the registration of co-ownership by household, and each of the plaintiffs should be recognized as a single seller.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

(c) Markets:

(1) In full view of the provisions of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and the Seoul Metropolitan Government Ordinance on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Ordinance”), in order for the defendant to become a partner, the land or building in the rearrangement zone must be owned by one person. If the ownership of land, etc. belongs to several persons, the number shall be regarded as one member. In principle, if several persons own one house, it shall be sufficient to regard several applicants for parcelling-out as persons eligible for parcelling-out, and if they sell one house: Provided, That the "multi-family house which has completed the registration of shares or sectional ownership before January 15, 1997" and the “multi-family house which has completed the registration of shares or sectional ownership with the permission of construction before the introduction of the multi-family house system, even if there are several persons, it shall be less than 1 person for multi-family house with the meaning of "multi-family house" under the Building Act or its floor area, which does not fall under the apartment floor area.

(2) In full view of the following, each building of this case constitutes a multi-family house with a building permit obtained prior to the introduction of a multi-family house and a multi-family house with a co-unit house with the same purpose as a multi-family house, which is a type of a multi-family house temporarily constructed between the mid-1970s and the mid-1980s prior to the introduction of a multi-family house system. Each building of this case consists of an independent residential space of each co-owner's households, and each household space is considered to have been treated as an independent ownership object even in transaction. In full view of the above, each building of this case constitutes a multi-family house with a multi-family house with a building permit obtained as a multi-family house prior to the introduction of a multi-family house, and the dwelling space for each household constitutes a household that becomes the object of parcelling-out.

(3) Therefore, although the defendant should have decided the plaintiffs who constitute each household of the de facto multi-family house which has completed the registration of shares by household as a single unit, the disposition of this case which decided the plaintiffs to be jointly united with other co-ownership right holders of each of the pertinent buildings of this case is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Sung-sung(Presiding Judge)(Presiding Judge)