Whether there is a legal interest in seeking confirmation or revocation of the disposition of usage inspection by occupants or prospective occupants under the former Housing Act (negative)

The disposition of the use inspection of a building causes a legal effect that enables the permitted person to use and benefit from the building constructed by verifying whether the building constructed with the building permit is in conformity with the purpose of the building administration in accordance with the building permit matters and issuing the certificate of use inspection.

Since such a disposition of usage inspection is limited to allowing the use and profit-making of a building, even if the disposition of usage inspection on the building was taken, it does not justify the fact that the defect in the building or the violation of the relevant laws and regulations, such as the Building Act, are not justified merely due to such circumstance. Moreover, even if the disposition of usage inspection on the building is invalidated or revoked, it merely makes it impossible to use the building that is returned to the state prior to the usage inspection, and it does

In addition, occupants or prospective occupants may claim and prove the legal relations and defects arising from a contract for sale in lots through civil litigation, etc., even though they did not receive confirmation of the invalidity of the disposition for use inspection or revoke the disposition, and thus, they cannot be said to have changed legal status due to the invalidity or revocation of the disposition for use inspection, and the former Rules on Housing Supply (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs No. 452, Mar. 30, 2012) does not change even if there are provisions related to the inspection for use regarding the housing supply contract.

Rather, there is a disposition of pre-use inspection on a house, so it would be generally beneficial to prospective occupants, and many occupants have moved in in trust in the pre-use inspection disposition of the authority for usage inspection and formed a number of legal relations based on the pre-use inspection disposition, such as selling, leasing, or offering a house to a third party. If some occupants or prospective occupants seek nullification or revocation of the pre-use inspection disposition due to individual disputes, etc. with the project undertaker, it would be contrary to the majority of interests trust in the disposition.

In full view of the above circumstances, occupants or prospective occupants under the former Housing Act (amended by Act No. 11243, Jan. 26, 2012) have no legal interest in seeking confirmation or revocation of the disposition of pre-use inspection.

Article 29 of the former Housing Act (Amended by Act No. 11243, Jan. 26, 2012); Article 22 of the Building Act; the former Rules on Housing Supply (Amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs No. 452, Mar. 30, 2012); Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Supreme Court Decision 93Nu20481 Decided January 14, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 738), Supreme Court Decision 2006Du18409 Decided April 26, 2007, Supreme Court Decision 2011Du30465 Decided July 24, 2014 (Gong2014Ha, 169)

As shown in the Attached List of Plaintiffs (Attorney Park Jong-ho, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Namyang Market (Law Firm LLC, Attorneys Jeong Jong-pop et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Coin Assets Trust Co., Ltd. and one other (Law Firm Namsan, Attorneys Jeon-gu et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2013Nu2022 decided October 17, 2013

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal, including the part resulting from supplementary participation, are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The disposition of the usage inspection of a building leads to a legal effect that enables the permitted person to use and benefit from the building constructed by verifying whether the building constructed upon obtaining a building permit meets the purpose of the building administration and granting a certificate of usage inspection by issuing it in accordance with the building permit.

Since such a disposition of usage inspection is limited to allowing the use and profit-making of a building, even if the disposition of usage inspection on the building was taken, the mere fact alone does not justify the fact that there was a defect in the building or a violation of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Building Act, etc. In addition, even if the disposition of usage inspection on the building was invalidated or revoked, it merely makes it impossible to use the building that is returned to the state prior to the usage inspection, and does not immediately remove or supplement the defect state, etc. of the building (see Supreme Court Decisions 93Nu20481, Jan. 14, 1994; 2006Du18409, Apr. 26, 2007, etc.).

In addition, occupants or prospective occupants may claim and prove the legal relations and defects arising from a contract for sale in lots through civil litigation, etc., even though they did not obtain confirmation of the invalidity of the disposition for use inspection or revoke the disposition, and thus, they cannot be said to have changed their legal status due to the invalidity or revocation of the disposition for use inspection. Thus, the former Rules on Housing Supply (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs No. 452 of March 30, 2012) does not change even if there are provisions related to the inspection for use regarding the housing supply contract.

Rather, there is a disposition of pre-use inspection on a house, so it would be generally beneficial to prospective occupants, and many occupants have moved in in trust in the pre-use inspection of the authority for usage inspection and have formed a number of legal relations based on the pre-use inspection disposition, such as selling, leasing, or offering a house to a third party. If some occupants or prospective occupants seek nullification or revocation of the pre-use inspection disposition due to individual disputes, etc. with the project undertaker, it would be contrary to the majority of interests trust in the relevant disposition.

In full view of the above circumstances, occupants or prospective occupants under the former Housing Act (amended by Act No. 11243, Jan. 26, 2012) have no legal interest in seeking nullification or revocation of the pre-use inspection disposition.

2. The court below, citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, determined that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, since it is difficult to view that the plaintiffs have a direct and specific legal interest protected by the relevant laws and regulations, etc., and thus, it was filed by a person who has no standing to sue, on the ground that the plaintiffs who are in the position of buyers regarding the apartment of this case have construction defects, etc. in the apartment of this case, such as the plaintiffs' assertion.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error by misapprehending the legal principles as to the standing in an appeal litigation.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party, including the part resulting from the participation in the appeal. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

[Separate] List of Plaintiffs: Omitted

Justices Kim Shin (Presiding Justice)