[1] In a case where a housing reconstruction project implementer exercises a claim for sale to a person who owns only land pursuant to Article 39 subparagraph 2 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, the meaning of "market price

[2] In a case where a housing reconstruction project implementer under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents exercised a right to demand sale of the land owned by Eul, etc. under Article 39 subparagraph 2 of the same Act, and the current status of the land was offered for passage of neighboring residents, the case holding that it is reasonable to assess the market price at the same level as the neighboring site market price in the case where a reconstruction project is to be implemented on the premise that it will be implemented

[1] If the executor of a housing reconstruction project under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents exercises a right to demand sale to a person who owns only the land under Article 39 subparagraph 2 of the same Act, the sale contract is established at the market price as to the land at the same time. The market price at this time is the objective market price at the time when the right to demand sale is exercised, which includes the price assessed on the premise that the housing reconstruction project is implemented, i.e.

[2] In a case where the implementer of a housing reconstruction project under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents exercised a claim for sale of the land owned by Eul, etc. under Article 39 subparagraph 2 of the same Act, and the current status of the land was offered for passage of neighboring residents, etc., the case holding that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles in determining the market price calculated based on the appraised value reduced to 1/3 of the neighboring site value solely on the basis of the circumstance that the current status of the land is a road, as long as the current status of the land becomes a part of multi-family housing when a housing reconstruction project is implemented, the market price is the same as that of the neighboring site when a reconstruction project is implemented, but it is reasonable to assess by

[1] Article 39 subparagraph 2 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, Article 48 (4) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings / [2] Article 39 subparagraph 2 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, Article 48 (4

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2008Da21549, 21556, 21563 Decided March 26, 2009

Suwon 42 Housing Reconstruction and Improvement Project Association (Law Firm LLC, Attorneys Kim Sun-jin et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and five others (Law Firm Kangsan, Attorneys Kim Tae-won et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2013Na47806 decided May 8, 2014

The part of the lower judgment against the Defendants is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Where a housing reconstruction project implementer under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents exercises a right to demand sale against a person who owns only the land under Article 39 subparag. 2 of the same Act, the sale contract is established at the same time as an expression of intent to exercise the right to demand sale is reached. The market price at this time is the objective market price at the time when the right to demand sale is exercised, which includes the price assessed on the premise that the housing reconstruction project is implemented, i.e. the price that includes the development gains expected to be incurred due to reconstruction (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Da21549, 21556, 21563, Mar. 26,

2. A. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below calculated the market price based on the appraised value reduced by 1/3 to 1/3 of the value of neighboring land, which reflects the change in land price due to the implementation of the instant reconstruction project at the base point of time, on the ground that the current status of each of the instant land owned by the Defendants, which is the subject of the instant claim for sale, is a road provided for the passage of neighboring residents, etc. for the passage of neighboring residents, and thus, cannot be said to be out of the existing reduction condition solely

B. However, in light of the above legal principles, as long as the current status of each land of this case is a road, if a housing reconstruction project is implemented, the market price is basically the same as the market price of the neighboring site in the case of the premise that the housing reconstruction project will be implemented. However, it is reasonable to calculate by means of a reduction evaluation in consideration of individual factors, such as the form of each land of this case, main arterial roads, accessibility with major arterial roads, and conditions of land access. Accordingly, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the calculation of the market price in the exercise of the right to demand sale, which calculated based on the market price reduced to 1/3 of the market

3. Therefore, the part of the lower judgment against the Defendants is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Shin (Presiding Justice)