(a) Where there is a change of the right holder of real estate within the urban redevelopment district, the effects of the application for parcelling-out filed by the former right holder;

(b) Legal nature and validity of the parcelling-out disposition in an urban redevelopment project under the Urban Redevelopment Act;

(c) Where only the land and buildings owned by the same person which are provided for urban redevelopment projects are knocked out to another person, the ownership of the apartment ownership due to the implementation of the projects;

A. According to Article 7(2) of the Urban Redevelopment Act, when there is a change in a person who has a right to land or a building within a redevelopment area or a developer or a right holder, the previous developer and the former developer, or the person who has a new implementer and the right holder, or the new implementer and the new right holder, the disposal, procedure, and other acts shall be deemed to have been conducted against the developer and the new right holder, and the application for parcelling-out by the owner of land or a building in an urban redevelopment district shall constitute procedure and other acts under the Urban Redevelopment Act. Thus, in case where the former owner of land and a building in an urban redevelopment district already filed an application for parcelling-out and the new right holder acquired the former owner’s right, the status of the former owner as the redevelopment district partner shall be succeeded and transferred to the new owner, and the effect of the application for parcelling-out by the former owner shall also be limited to the new owner, and the ownership of the land or building facilities

B. Sale in an urban redevelopment project under the Urban Redevelopment Act is a disposition in the process of settling the amount equivalent to the difference between the prices of the previous land or buildings constructed or constructed by the redevelopment project for the land or buildings within the urban redevelopment area and settling the amount of the difference between the prices of the land or constructed facilities, or settling the land or constructed facilities in cash without establishing the land or constructed facilities, and it does not cause any gain or change as to the ownership of the previous land or buildings, but in itself, it does not cause any gain or change as to the ownership of the rights. Meanwhile, in the case where the land or constructed facilities are determined on behalf of the previous land or buildings, the legal relationship with the previous land or constructed facilities exist on behalf of the former land or buildings is performed maintaining their identity on the land or constructed facilities on the following day of the announcement of the sale in lots. Thus, the sale in this case is not a substitute disposal, and thus, if the developer misleads the owner of the redevelopment project to sell the land or constructed facilities to a person other than the owner of the previous land or constructed facilities, the ownership of the land or constructed facilities can be acquired and exercised.

C. Of the land and buildings offered to the redevelopment association as the initial ownership, the land was sold to Eul after the consent of Gap was previously removed. However, in the case where the redevelopment association misleads Eul as to the right to the building and sells only one unit of apartment house to Eul, the land was provided to the redevelopment association by Eul, and thus, Eul has the ownership of the converted part of the apartment house. However, since the building was offered to the redevelopment association from the beginning, the right was not transferred to the redevelopment association, and the building was converted into the building, the ownership of the apartment house should be deemed to exist. However, the ratio of ownership of the converted part of the apartment to the part where the land was converted to the building to the redevelopment association, i.e., the ratio of ownership of the land and the building to the part where the building was converted, barring any special circumstances.

(a) Article 7 of the Urban Redevelopment Act;

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law No. 4835, Jun. 30, 1995) (Law No. 1995Ha, 2540, 2540)

Attorney Lee Jae-sung, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 94Na26082 delivered on January 27, 1995

The part of the judgment below against the plaintiff excluding the part of the claim for confirmation of ownership is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The remaining appeals by the plaintiff are dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, since Defendant 2 was a corporation established under the Urban Redevelopment Act for the purpose of improving housing units on the ground of Gangdong-gu Seoul ( Address omitted), its members constituted the owners of the land and buildings within the implementation zone, and the land and the building on the ground of this case within the implementation zone of the redevelopment project was completed on June 2, 1980, the ownership transfer registration was completed under the name of the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff agreed to remove the building of this case on August 1985, and the building of this case was removed under the ownership transfer registration of this case on the premise that the ownership transfer registration of this case was revoked on September 27, 1986 by the plaintiff, and the building of this case was revoked under the ownership transfer registration of this case on the ground that the ownership transfer registration of this case was made under the name of the non-party 1, the building of this case, which was not under the execution zone of the redevelopment project, but under the name of the plaintiff.

2. In light of the records, it is acknowledged that there was a separate parcelling-out disposition in accordance with the management and disposal plan that was amended on January 15, 1991 in the process of the execution of the redevelopment project of this case (the land and building owner was subject to parcelling-out), and that there was a separate parcelling-out disposition in accordance with the previous management and disposal plan that was approved on September 8, 198 (the plaintiff was subject to parcelling-out). Meanwhile, according to Article 7(2) of the Urban Redevelopment Act, when there is a change in the implementer or the right holder of the land and building within the redevelopment area, the previous implementer and the right holder, or the disposal, procedure, and other actions conducted against the developer and the right holder, shall be deemed to have been conducted by the new developer and the right holder, or to have been conducted by the new developer and the new right holder. Thus, if the plaintiff had already applied for parcelling-out and had already been acquired the rights of the plaintiff, it shall be effective or effective as the plaintiff's partner's ownership as the plaintiff's partner, and construction of the building site.

In addition, even if there are circumstances as argued by the theory, it cannot be said that the approval disposition of the above changed management and disposal plan itself becomes null and void.

On the contrary, we can accept the argument that there has been a separate disposition of parcelling-out prior to the instant disposition of parcelling-out, or that the status as a member can not be succeeded, and that the person who acquired the right can apply for parcelling-out separately, or that the modified disposition of the management and disposal plan is invalid on the premise that it is invalid.

3. However, in the urban redevelopment project under the Urban Redevelopment Act, the sale of land or building in the urban redevelopment project shall be determined by determining the location and scope of the former land or building facilities developed or constructed by the urban redevelopment project for the land or building in the urban redevelopment area, and the amount equivalent to the difference of the price thereof is liquidated, or the land or building facilities are liquidated in money without establishing the land or building facilities, and the sale of land or building facilities constitutes the so-called public exchange rights which forcibly converts the rights to the ownership of the previous land or building into the ownership. However, the sale of land or building by itself does not cause any gain or change as to the ownership of the rights. In addition, in the case where the former land or building facilities are determined on behalf of the former land or building, the right relationship existing in the previous land or building is performed (performance) maintaining its identity on the day following the announcement of the sale of land or building. Thus, the sale of land in this case shall not be deemed to have been done by a third party who is not the owner of the previous land or building, and it shall be deemed to have been acquired the ownership of the previous land or building.

However, according to the facts and records established by the court below, since the auction procedure was conducted for only the land of this case among the land and buildings owned by the plaintiff, and the building of this case was demolished after the execution of the redevelopment project of this case, but the plaintiff was removed by the prior consent of the company selected by the redevelopment promotion committee prior to the establishment of the redevelopment project of this case. The plaintiff's association recognized the plaintiff as the partner who provided the land of this case and the building of this case as the unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit.

Although the Plaintiff’s land was knocked and owned by Defendant 2, but the building of this case was demolished for the redevelopment project, and the Plaintiff’s membership as the Plaintiff’s member should be recognized, there is no room to deem that the Plaintiff’s assertion that Defendant 2 would seek implementation of the registration procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration for the apartment of this case, and for the Defendant Union to seek implementation of the ownership transfer registration procedure for the Plaintiff’s future ownership transfer registration procedure for the apartment of this case. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the Urban Redevelopment Act, on the ground that the sales disposition of this case cannot be deemed as null and void as a matter of course, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s assertion should be clearly organized and the propriety should have been considered as well. Accordingly, the lower court’s rejection of the entire claim was clearly affected by the conclusion of the judgment, at least, the building of this case among the apartment of this case, within the scope of the converted part.

4. There is no submission of any ground of appeal as to the judgment below which dismissed the claim for confirmation of ownership among the lawsuit in this case, and the appeal on this part is bound to be dismissed.

5. Therefore, the part of the judgment below against the plaintiff excluding the part of the claim for confirmation of ownership is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The remaining appeal by the plaintiff is dismissed. The costs of appeal by this part are assessed against the losing plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)