Where an application for parcelling-out is not made under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents or the owner of land, etc. who has withdrawn the application for parcelling-out before the expiration of the period for application for parcelling-out fails to lose ownership of land, etc. due to cash settlement, whether perusal and copy of the documents and related materials related to the implementation

In the case of housing redevelopment projects under Article 2 subparagraph 9 (a) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter referred to as the "Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents"), the concept of the owners of land, etc. shall be referred to as "owners of land or buildings located within the rearrangement zone or persons with superficies thereof". It conforms to the language and text of Articles 81 and 86 subparagraph 6 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents. Since the owners of land, etc., who failed to apply for parcelling-out under Article 47 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents or withdrawn application for parcelling-out before the expiration of the period for application for parcelling-out, lose their status as partners in the housing redevelopment project, even if the owners of land, buildings, or other rights are not paid in cash within 150 days from the date they fall under the person subject to the housing redevelopment project, but the amount of liquidation shall be calculated by consultation between the redevelopment project association and the owner of land, etc.

Subparagraph 9 (a), Article 47, Article 81, and Article 86 subparagraph 6 of Article 2 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (Amended by Act No. 11293, Feb. 1, 2012);

Supreme Court Decision 2006Du2954 Decided March 13, 2008

Defendant

Defendant

Attorneys Hong-ju et al.

Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2011No278 decided May 26, 2011

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In the case of housing redevelopment projects under Article 2 subparagraph 9 (a) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter referred to as the "Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents"), the concept of the owners of land, etc. is stipulated as "the owners of land or buildings located within the rearrangement zone or the persons with superficies thereof". It is in line with the language and text of Articles 81 and 86 subparagraph 6 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents. Even if the owners of land, etc. who failed to apply for parcelling-out under Article 47 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents or withdrawn application for parcelling-out before the expiration of the period for application for parcelling-out, lose their status as members, in light of the procedures for cash liquidation in the housing redevelopment project, the housing redevelopment project association is liquidated in cash for the land, buildings or other rights within 150 days from the date of falling under the said project, but the amount of land redevelopment project and the land redevelopment project is still not made within 800.36.

In the same purport, the court below is just in finding the defendant as the head of the association of the housing redevelopment project association of this case as the owner of land in this case, etc. in the rearrangement zone of this case, who did not apply for parcelling-out or lost the status of association members, but did not lose the ownership of land, etc., guilty of failing to comply with the request for copying documents and related materials. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the authority to request perusal and copying

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Young-chul (Presiding Justice)