The case holding that one person for each household shall be the object of parcelling-out in case of a detached house which had been registered for each household after filing an application for a building permit before the introduction of the multi-family house system on April 21, 1990 and completed a building permit after its implementation

The case holding that one person for each household shall be the object of parcelling-out on April 21, 1990 as a multi-family house as provided in Article 7 of the Addenda to the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Improvement of Urban and Residential Environments ( December 30, 2003) because a detached house, which filed an application for a building permit before the introduction of the multi-family house system and completed a building permit after its implementation and completed the registration

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(2)3 of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, Article 7 of the Addenda to the Act on the Maintenance

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

Defendant (Law Firm Flaon, Attorneys Kim Sang-hoon, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

November 14, 2008

1. The part of the management and disposal plan authorized by the head of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on May 16, 2008 that the defendant decided the plaintiffs as joint buyers shall be revoked.

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

As indicated in the Disposition [The purport of the claim of this case filed by the plaintiff in the complaint is clear in light of the argument of the cause of the claim, and thus, the purport of the claim of this case (the defendant's rejection disposition against the plaintiffs on May 24, 2008 shall be revoked) recorded in the complaint shall be as above].

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Defendant is a rearrangement project partnership that obtained authorization from the head of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government to implement a housing redevelopment project (hereinafter “instant rearrangement project”) with respect to the Mapo-gu Seoul (hereinafter “instant rearrangement zone”) designated as a rearrangement zone pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Do Government Act”). Furthermore, the Plaintiffs, Nonparty 1, and Nonparty 2, etc. are co-ownership owners of the building in Mapo-gu (hereinafter “instant building”) located within the rearrangement zone of this case (hereinafter “instant building”). In addition, Plaintiff 1 is the owner of the above (hereinafter omitted), Plaintiff 2, and Plaintiff 3 are the owners of the above (hereinafter omitted).

B. The Plaintiffs filed an application with the Defendant for the allocation of collective housing individually on the ground that they actually use the instant building as a house under the sectional ownership. However, the Defendant, as the co-owner of the instant building, was approved by the head of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on May 16, 2008, by applying Article 24(2)3 of the Seoul Metropolitan Government Ordinance on the Maintenance of Urban and Residential Environments (amended by Ordinance No. 4686, Sep. 30, 2008; hereinafter “the instant Ordinance”), pursuant to the instant management and disposition plan, the Plaintiffs, Non-Party 1, Non-Party 2, etc. were co-owners of the instant building (hereinafter “instant management and disposition plan”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2-1 to 3, Gap evidence 5, 6, Gap evidence 8-1, 2, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

The plaintiffs claim that the building of this case constitutes a de facto multi-family house as stipulated in Article 7 of the Addenda to the Ordinance of this case, and thus, the plaintiffs are individually owned persons. Accordingly, the defendant asserts that the plaintiffs are co-owners of the building of this case and the building permission of this case does not fall under a de facto multi-family house as stipulated in Article 7 of the Addenda to the Ordinance of this case, and that the disposition of this case is legitimate.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Markets:

(1) According to Gap evidence Nos. 8 and 10-1 and 2, the building of this case is a building for which one person, other than the plaintiffs, applied for a building permit on April 10, 1990 with neighborhood living facilities (branch floors, 1, 2 floors) and housing (3, 4 floors) and obtained a building permit from the head of Mapo-gu office on April 23, 1990. The building of this case consists of 3 and 4 housing units, each of which consists of 2 households from the time of designing and constructing the building of this case, each of which consists of 3 and 4 housing units, and the remaining parts of the building of this case, according to each share ratio of the plaintiffs.

(2) Article 24(2)3 of the Ordinance provides that "The apartment house (including the de facto multi-family house which obtained a building permit prior to the introduction of the multi-family house system on April 21, 1990 and completed the registration of shares or divided ownership) shall be one person for each household (Article 24(1)1, (2)3 main sentence of Article 24), where several applicants for parcelling-out own one house or one parcel of land, the number of applicants for parcelling-out shall be deemed to be eligible for parcelling-out (Article 24(1)1, the main sentence of Article 24(2)3)." However, the multi-family house which completed the registration of shares or divided ownership for each household on or before January 15, 1997 (including the multi-family house which completed the registration of shares or divided ownership with the building permit obtained before the introduction of the multi-family house system) shall be the one for each unit unit (Article 24(2)3 of the Municipal Ordinance (Article 7 of the multi-family house).2).

However, comprehensively taking account of the various circumstances as seen below, it is reasonable and equitable to regard one person for each household as the de facto multi-family house as stipulated in Article 7 of the Addenda of the Ordinance of this case in the case of a house which has filed an application for a building permit prior to the introduction of the multi-family house system, such as the building in this case, as the building in this case, and to regard one person for each household as the

(A) The original multi-family house system was introduced in accordance with the guidelines of the construction department at the time of April 21, 1990, and the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act was amended by Presidential Decree No. 16234 on April 30, 199, and [Attachment Table 1] Paragraph (1)(c) of the “type of buildings by use,” and it seems difficult for ordinary residents to clearly distinguish between detached houses and multi-family houses solely with the said construction department’s guidelines, until the multi-family house is stipulated as one of the detached houses under Article 16234 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act.

(B) In particular, the relationship between the building and the building owner’s guidelines at the time of the application for the building permit on April 10, 1990, which had been issued by the building owner at the time of the multi-family house system, the Plaintiffs could not at all have anticipated the contents of the building permit, which was the multi-family house, and if the head of Mapo-gu office promptly handled the application for the building permit on the instant building, it would have been possible to grant the building permit even before April 21, 1990. In such a case, deeming that the instant building is not included in the multi-family house in fact as stipulated in Article 7 of the Addenda to the instant Ordinance, on the ground that the building permit was not obtained on or before April 21,

(C) The legislative purport of Article 7 of the Addenda to the instant Municipal Ordinance is that each household of the de facto multi-family house has a structure that can actually carry on an independent residential life, such as multi-family housing, from the design and construction stage of January 15, 1997, in order to reflect the reality that each household of the de facto multi-family house is traded as multi-family house such as multi-family house, and it is apparent that it would sell a house by treating it as multi-family house in the case where it is traded independently through registration, etc. equivalent thereto. However, considering such legislative purpose, even if it was not permitted before January 15, 1997, even if it was not permitted to construct a multi-family house before the design and construction stage, it has the structure and function that many households can reside independently from the time of the construction and there is no special reason to treat it differently from the case where the building permit was obtained as multi-family house.

(3) Therefore, the disposition of this case, which determined the plaintiffs as the joint 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

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices.

Judges Kim Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)