[1] The meaning of "conversion" under Article 24 (2) 1 and Article 5 of the Addenda of the former Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Improvement of Urban and Residential Environments where multi-family houses are converted into multi-household houses

[2] The case holding that where an application for parcelling-out is filed without converting the building register into multi-household houses until December 30, 2003, the registration of equity in October 2002, the registration of divided ownership was completed on July 31, 2003, and the application for parcelling-out is not satisfied as the requirement of Article 7 of the Addenda to the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Maintenance of Urban and Residential Environments, which is the requirement of Article 7 of the Addenda to the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Maintenance of Urban and Residential Environments, and the registration of divided ownership is completed on or before January 15, 1997

[1] In light of the legislative purport and history of Article 24(2)1 and 3 of the former Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Improvement of Urban and Residential Environments (amended by Ordinance No. 430 of Nov. 10, 2005), Articles 5 and 7 of the Addenda, and the systematic structure of each of the above provisions, it is reasonable to deem that Article 24(2)3 of the above Ordinance and Article 7 of the Addenda provide that where only a registration of share or a registration of divided ownership has been made with respect to a multi-family house, and Article 24(2)1 of the above Ordinance and Article 5 of the Addenda provide that where a multi-family house has been converted into a multi-household house, the "conversion" in this case refers to the conversion of a building ledger under Article 6(1) of the former Rules on the entry and management, etc. of a multi-family house register (wholly amended by Ordinance No. 547 of Nov. 16, 2007).

[2] The case holding that where an application for parcelling-out is filed without converting the building ledger into multi-household houses until December 30, 2003, with respect to a building which is a multi-family house, the registration of equity in October 2002, the registration of divided ownership was completed on July 31, 2003, and the application for parcelling-out without converting into the building ledger was made on December 30, 2003, it constitutes "where several persons own one house" under Article 24 (2) 3 of the former Ordinance on the Maintenance of Urban and Residential Environments (amended by Ordinance No. 430 of November 10, 2005), it constitutes "where several persons own one house" and it does not meet the requirement under Article 7 of the Addenda of the above Ordinance, which is the transitional provision, which is the requirement under Article 7 of the above Ordinance.

[1] Article 24(2)1 and Article 24(2)3 (see current Article 27(2)3) of the former Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Improvement of Urban and Residential Environments (Amended by Ordinance No. 430, Nov. 10, 2005); Article 5 and Article 7 of the Addenda (see current Article 27(2)3); Article 6(1) (see current Article 15(1)) of the former Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Maintenance of Urban and Residential Environments (Amended by Ordinance No. 430, Nov. 10, 2005); Article 24(2)3 (see current Article 27(2)3 (see current Article 27(2)3) of the former Ordinance on the Maintenance of Urban and Residential Environments (Amended by Ordinance No. 430, Dec. 30, 2003); Article 6(1) (see current Article 15(1)) of the former Rules on the Establishment and Management of Building Registerss (Amended by Ordinance No. 23030)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2008Du22853 Decided April 23, 2009

Plaintiff 1 and two others (Attorney Park Sung-hoon, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

king New Zealand District Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association (Attorney Park Il-il et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee)

Seoul High Court Decision 2009Nu7150 decided June 3, 2009

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 48(2)6 of the Act on the Improvement of Urban and Residential Environments (hereinafter “Urban and Residential Environments Act”) provides that “where two or more persons co-own one house, only one house shall be supplied,” and Article 48(7) of the same Act provides that “the details of the management and disposition plan, the methods and standards for the management and disposition, etc. shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree,” and Article 52(1)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Improvement of Urban and Residential Environments shall sell land, etc. within the improvement zone to the owner of the land, etc.: Provided, That in cases of selling multi-family housing, the owner of the land, etc. that does not meet the standards for the amount, size, acquisition date, or type prescribed by City/Do municipal ordinances may be excluded from the objects of sale as prescribed by City

Meanwhile, Article 24 (2) of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Improvement of Urban and Residential Environments (hereinafter “the instant Ordinance”). Article 24 (2) of the said Enforcement Decree provides that “Where a single house or multi-family house is converted into a multi-household house after the completion of a building” (Article 1) and “where several persons own a single house or multi-family house after the completion of a building” (Article 3) and Article 24 (3) of the said Ordinance provides that “where a single house or multi-family house is converted into a multi-household house before December 30, 2003 (the enforcement date of the instant Ordinance) and a multi-household house is converted into a multi-household house (Article 5 of the Addenda), and Article 7 of the said Ordinance provides that “Where a multi-household house or multi-family house is converted into a multi-household house and completed a separate registration before January 15, 197).”

However, Article 27(2)(b) of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on Urban Redevelopment Project (hereinafter “former Ordinance”) which was amended and implemented on January 15, 1997 is jointly owned by several persons, and Article 27(2)(b) of the same Ordinance provides for a transitional provision (Article 6 of the Addenda) regarding “multi-family house which has completed the registration of shares or sectional ownership by household prior to the enforcement date of the former Ordinance).” The contents of these provisions were succeeded to the above Article 24(2)3 and Article 7 of the Addenda prior to the enactment and enforcement of the former Ordinance on December 30, 203.

In addition, Article 27 (3) of the former Ordinance provides that "a unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit.

The purport of Articles 7 and 5 of the Addenda to the instant Municipal Ordinance is to, in exceptional cases where several persons have registered shares by household, registered divided ownership, or registered multi-household houses, or in cases where multi-unit houses have become multi-household houses after the building that was multi-household houses was converted into a multi-household house, it is to exceptionally recognize the individual allotment by household, and reflect the situation of separate transaction by household with independent structure in such cases, but to require the registration of shares or the registration of divided ownership, or conversion into multi-household houses was made not later than a certain point in time in order to prevent the harmful effects such as the so-called “multi-family house supplied by a housing redevelopment project.”

In light of the legislative intent, history, and systematic structure of Article 24(2)1 and 3 of the Ordinance of this case, Article 5 and Article 7 of the Addenda of this case, Article 24(2)3 of the Ordinance of this case and Article 7 of the Addenda of this case concerning the case where only the registration of shares or the registration of divided ownership has been made with respect to multi-family houses, and Article 24(2)1 of the Ordinance and Article 5 of the Addenda of this case concerning the case where a multi-family house has been converted into a multi-household house, the "conversion" in this case means the "Rules on the entry, Management, etc. of Building Ledger" (wholly amended by Ordinance No. 547 of Jan. 16, 2007) under Article 6(1) of the former Rules on the entry, Management, etc. of Building Ledger.

As stated in the judgment of the court below, as long as a multi-family house with a structure that can carry on an independent residential life has been registered as an aggregate building, it shall be deemed that it has been substantially converted into a multi-household at the time of the registration of division. Accordingly, if Article 24 (2) 1 of the Ordinance of this case and Article 5 of the Addenda applies to this case, even if the multi-family house was registered as a multi-household house after January 15, 1997 without the conversion into the building register, it shall be converted to a multi-household house if it was made before December 30, 2003, and as a result, the individual right to sell the house is naturally recognized pursuant to the above provisions of the Ordinance. However, such interpretation cannot be accepted in that it is compatible with the above Article 7 of the Addenda that requires the registration of shares or the registration of divided ownership before January 15, 1997 (see Supreme Court Decision 208Du2853, Apr. 23, 2009).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the records, the plaintiffs completed the registration of equity in October 2002, the registration of divided ownership on July 31, 2003, and the registration of divided ownership on July 31, 2003, and applied for parcelling-out without converting the building ledger into multi-household houses until December 30 of the same year. In applying the above legal principles, the plaintiffs' above cases constitute "cases where several persons own one house" under Article 24 (2) 3 of the Ordinance of this case, and since they failed to meet the requirements under Article 7 of the above Addenda, which is the transitional provision of this case, they should be jointly sold.

Nevertheless, the lower court’s determination that the instant building constitutes “the case where a multi-family house is converted into a multi-household house” under Article 24(2)1 of the instant Municipal Ordinance and Article 5 of the above Addenda applies to the case where the said building is subject to individual sale is erroneous in matters of law by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the provisions of the instant Municipal Ordinance, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The allegation in

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Ji-hyung (Presiding Justice)