[1] In order to recover or improve the function of a park or green area in a rearrangement zone, whether other parks with similar function are included in the area where a park is installed in lieu of an existing park (affirmative)

[2] The method of determining whether a building constitutes a standard for calculating "housing adjoining rate" under Article 4 (1) 1 (b) of the former Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on Urban and Residential Environment Improvement

[1] Under Article 10(1) [Attachment Table 1] 2(b) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21679 of Aug. 11, 2009), the housing density can be seen as the standard for determining “area difficult to promote the rational use and value of land within the zone because buildings excessively concentrated,” or “area 1(c) [d) of the same subparagraph [Attachment Table 1] of the same Article [Attachment 4] of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21679 of Aug. 11, 2009], which is the zone subject to the formulation of the rearrangement plan for the housing redevelopment project; in principle, the existing park or green area shall not be included in the rearrangement zone if it is necessary to restore the function of the park or green area or if it is necessary to improve the residential environment in the rearrangement zone, it is reasonable to exclude existing housing density from the zone from 200.

[2] In full view of the language and text, text, and proviso of Article 4(1)1(b) of the former Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Improvement of Urban and Residential Environments (amended by Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance No. 4824, Jul. 30, 2009; hereinafter “former Ordinance on the Maintenance”); legislative intent of the former Ordinance on the Maintenance of Residential Environments (amended by the former Ordinance on the Maintenance of Residential Environments); provisions on roads of the Building Act, which are relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, in a comprehensive manner, where the width of a part of a road where a site of a building in a rearrangement zone is 4 meters or more, the building constitutes the basis for the calculation of the house adjoining site. However, it is reasonable to interpret that the building site does not constitute a building that serves as the basis for the calculation of the house adjoining area if there is no “road maintained at least four meters” from the part adjoining the building site to the “road beyond the rearrangement zone.

[1] Article 10 (1) [Attachment 1] subparagraph 1 (d), 2 (b), and (c) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21679 of Aug. 11, 2009), Article 2 subparagraph 5 (c) of the former Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Ordinance No. 4824 of Jul. 30, 2009) / [2] Article 2 subparagraph 4 of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Ordinance No. 9632 of Apr. 22, 2009), Article 10 (1) [Attachment 1] subparagraph 1 (d), 2 (e), 2 (c), 4 (c) of the former Ordinance on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21679 of Aug. 111, 2009)

See Attached List of Plaintiffs (Law Firm Roon, Attorneys Park In-som et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor

Establishment Promotion Committee for Housing Redevelopment Projects in Zone Seven (Attorney Kang Sung-sung, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2010Nu28191 decided August 23, 2011

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal, including the costs of participation, are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. Article 2 subparag. 5 of the former Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Improvement of Urban and Residential Environments (amended by Ordinance No. 4824, Jul. 30, 2009; hereinafter “former Ordinance on the Improvement of Residential Environments”) provides that “The density refers to the density calculated by the number of buildings constructed per kilogramt area in an improvement zone and calculated according to the following standards.” (c) Item (a) of Article 9 of the former Ordinance on the Improvement of Residential Environments (amended by Ordinance No. 4824, Jul. 30, 200; hereinafter “former Ordinance on the Improvement of Residential Environments”). Meanwhile, Article 9 subparag. 1(a) of the former Ordinance on the Improvement of Residential Environments (amended by Ordinance No. 4824, Jul. 30, 2009; hereinafter “former Ordinance on the Improvement of Residential Environments”) provides that “where it is necessary to restore the function of

B. The housing density can be seen as the standard for determination of the "area where it is difficult to promote the rational use and value of land within the zone because buildings excessively concentrated," or subparagraph (c) of Article 10 (1) [Attachment Table 1] of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Greenbelts (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21679, Aug. 11, 2009; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents”), which is the zone subject to the formulation of the rearrangement plan for the housing redevelopment project, because the population is excessively concentrated and the maintenance of infrastructure is inferior, and the residential environment is inferior and urgent." (2) In principle, the designation of the rearrangement zone shall be included in the rearrangement zone only in cases where it is necessary to restore the functions of the existing park or green area or to improve the land use, and it shall be included in the rearrangement zone if it is necessary to determine whether the existing housing density and area of the zone is less than the area of the park located in the improvement zone.

C. The decision of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the calculation of housing density.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

A. Article 4(1)1(b) of the former Ordinance on the Maintenance and Improvement of Housing refers to the ratio calculated by dividing the total number of buildings adjacent to a road with a width of at least four meters in a rearrangement zone by the total number of buildings in an improvement zone: Provided, That in the case of a dead-end road with a width of at least 35 meters, it shall be 6 meters in width (hereinafter “instant housing adjoining condition clause”).

B. Even if a building adjoining a road, the width of which is at least four meters within an improvement zone pursuant to the proviso to Article 2 of the Housing Act, is at least 35 meters, it shall be deemed that the concept of “road, the width of which is at least four meters” as provided in the main sentence of the Housing Act is premised on a certain section. In addition, if a road is one of the representative infrastructure of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 9632, Apr. 22, 2009), the housing adjoining rate is at least 10(1) [Attachment 1] 2(c) [Attachment 1] of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 9632, Apr. 22, 2009; 4) and the term “road, the road structure of which is at least 9(d) and (e) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, which are likely to be 4m or wider.”

In full view of the language and text of the instant provision, the relationship between the main text and proviso thereof, the legislative intent of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Housing, and the provisions on roads of the Building Act, which are the relevant laws and regulations, in principle, when comprehensively considering the following factors: (a) a building site in a rearrangement zone is at least four meters wide; (b) the building constitutes a building that serves as the basis for calculating the house adjoining; (c) however, it is reasonable to interpret that the building site in the rearrangement zone does not constitute a building if there is no “road whose width is at least four meters away from the rearrangement zone” until “road whose width is at least four meters away from the rearrangement zone” through the road adjoining the building site.

C. In the same purport, although the judgment of the court below that deemed that the requirements for the house-to-house rate were met is somewhat inappropriate, it is justified in its conclusion, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the calculation of the house-to-house rate.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs, including the costs of participation in the appeal. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

[Attachment] List of Plaintiffs: omitted

Justices Yang Chang-soo (Presiding Justice)