A. Whether a complex building with both residential and business purposes constitutes a house under the former Housing Construction Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 4530 of Dec. 8, 1992)

(b) The case holding that, even if an agreement is reached by one of co-owners to jointly own a house among multiple buildings with housing units and business units in a building, the entire building shall be deemed to be jointly owned as long as it has been registered as joint ownership;

A. The complex building, which includes a house in the above building, is a house under the former Housing Construction Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 4530 of Dec. 8, 1992), insofar as it includes a house in the above building.

(b) The case holding that, even if an agreement is reached by one of co-owners to own a house among multiple buildings with housing units and business units in a building, the entire building shall be deemed to be jointly owned as long as it is registered as joint ownership.

A. Article 3 subparagraph 2(b) of the former Housing Construction Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 4530, Dec. 8, 1992); Article 47 and Article 51 subparagraph 6 of the same Act; Article 13(2) of the former Rules on Housing Supply (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 478, Apr. 6, 1991)

A

Defendant

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 92No7120 delivered on March 23, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The defendant's grounds of appeal are examined.

The court below held that the defendant's ownership part of the building in Mapo-gu in Seoul, where the defendant owns 1/2 shares in the register is not a separate house for complex building with a house and a house for business use, and that the part of the building is owned by non-indicted C, who is the dynamics of the defendant, and therefore, the defendant is only the owner of 1 bonds located in Yongsan-gu in Seoul, and does not constitute two or more houses for one household excluded from the first order at the time of the application for the unit purchase of the apartment in this case, the above building is a house under the Housing Construction Promotion Act as long as the house is included in the above building, and as alleged by the defendant, the part of the building in the above building is owned jointly by the defendant and the above building is owned jointly, so long as the defendant owned the house in the above building as well as the house in the above building, the defendant's ownership is not a separate house for business use and the house is owned by the non-indicted C.

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

Justices Ansan-man (Presiding Justice)