[1] Whether it constitutes a training institute under Article 11 (1) 5 of the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Private Teaching Institutes and Article 10 (1) 14 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites

[2] Criteria for determining whether a building is a land annexed to a building under Article 3 subparagraph 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Site

[3] The case holding that even if the land is divided into several lots, it shall be deemed as a group of land annexed to a building under Article 3 subparagraph 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Site

[1] A private teaching institute which is operated on a housing site after obtaining authorization pursuant to the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Private Teaching Institutes does not constitute a training institute under Article 11 (1) 5 of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites and Article 10 (1) 14 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14363, Aug. 19, 194).

[2] The issue of whether the land is the land annexed to a building under Article 3 subparagraph 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites shall not be determined on the basis of whether the relevant land was a land annexed to the building since the construction permission was completed, or whether it was acquired after the new construction of the building, and it shall be objectively determined on the basis of the actual use status during

[3] The case holding that even if the land is divided into several parcels, it shall be deemed as a group of land annexed for a building under Article 3 subparagraph 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites in light of the actual use status

[1] Article 11(1)5 of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites, Article 10 subparag. 14 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14363 of Aug. 19, 194) / [2] Article 2 subparag. 1(b) of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites, Article 3 subparag. 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14363 of Aug. 19, 194) / [3] Article 3 subparag. 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14363 of Aug. 19, 194)

[1] Supreme Court en banc Decision 94Nu4257 delivered on November 16, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 3809) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 94Nu8372 delivered on December 27, 1994 (Gong1995Sang, 704) Supreme Court Decision 95Nu1149 delivered on July 14, 1995 (Gong195Ha, 2823)

Plaintiff (Attorney Lee Jae-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The head of Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 94Gu23274 delivered on January 11, 1995

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The First Ground for Appeal

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the relevant statutes and the records, it is just that the court below held that the Plaintiff’s private teaching institutes operating on the instant housing site after obtaining authorization under the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Private Teaching Institutes do not constitute a training institute under Article 11(1)5 of the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Private Teaching Institutes and Article 10 subparag. 14 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14363 of Aug. 19, 194; Presidential Decree No. hereinafter “Enforcement Decree”), and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged in the arguments.

The Second Ground of Appeal

The issue of whether the land is the land annexed to a building under Article 3 subparagraph 1 of the Enforcement Decree shall not be determined on the basis of whether the relevant land was a land annexed to the building since the building permission was granted, or whether it was acquired after the new construction of the building, but shall be objectively determined on the basis of the actual usage status during the period for the imposition of the housing site excess ownership charges (hereinafter referred to as "charges"). (See each of the Decisions 94Nu8372 delivered on December 27, 1994 and 95Nu149 delivered on July 14, 195).

However, according to the records, the plaintiff, from around April 1978 to July 198, operated a school for entrance with the authorization of the establishment of a private teaching institute from the competent authorities, and constructed the buildings of the Yang land institute in the attached Table 1, 2 on the land indicated in the attached Table 1, 3, and 4 of the judgment of the court below on the land indicated in the attached Table 1, 3, and 4 of the judgment of the court below, and used the land indicated in the same list 7, 8, and 9 as the private teaching institute's lecture room and office. The plaintiff acquired each building from April 1, 1983 to July 198, and used it as the parking lot and playground for each building. There are fences installed a fence around each of the above lands connected with each other, but all of the above lands are used as the land for each building without installing a boundary mark or fence. Accordingly, each of the above lands should be considered as the land annexed to each building in light of the actual status of

Nevertheless, the court below held that the disposition of this case's charge was legitimate without making any decision on the plaintiff's assertion that the land within the scope prescribed in attached Table 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the above land should be excluded from the subject of the charge, since each of the above lands is used as the land annexed to each of the above buildings. Thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of the land annexed to the building under Article 3 subparagraph 1 of the Enforcement Decree and the omission of judgment as to the scope of the land annexed to the building under Article 3 subparagraph 1 of the Enforcement Decree, and it is obvious that such illegality

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)