The case holding that in principle, only a person who owns land on which a building is located under the articles of association of the Housing Redevelopment Cooperatives and the person who owns the remaining shares of the land and the owner of the building is the person who jointly parcels out of one site and constructed facilities: Provided, That each land area according to co-ownership shares exceeds the minimum size of each site under each Building Act, the person

The case holding that only a person who owns a building on the articles of association of a housing redevelopment association, stipulated the requirements of the partner subject to parcelling-out, as co-ownership shares, and the owner of the remaining shares of the land and the building are co-owners of one site and constructed facilities in principle: Provided, That only a person who owns only the land as co-ownership shares and a person who owns the remaining shares of the land and each land area based on the co-ownership shares of the owner of the remaining shares of the land

Articles 14, 34, and 35 of the Urban Redevelopment Act

Plaintiff

housing redevelopment partnership No. 12

Seoul High Court Decision 2000Nu14018 delivered on June 28, 200

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

In full view of the provisions of the Articles of the Defendant Union’s articles of association, which stipulate the requirements of the partner subject to parcelling-out, only the land on which the building is located, and the remaining shares of the building and the owner of the building are the co-owners of the building site and constructed facilities in principle. However, only in cases where only the land is owned as co-owned shares, and the remaining shares of the land and the owner of the building are owned as co-owned shares of the person who owns the remaining shares of the land and the size of each land is more than

However, according to the records and reasoning of the judgment below, the Plaintiff is the owner of the above land and the non-party, who is the owner of the above land, and the non-party, who is the other co-owner, can find the fact that he is the remaining owner of the above land. Thus, the Plaintiff constitutes the owner of the land below the minimum size of the site under the Building Act, and the non-party is the owner of the above-mentioned land whose land is above the minimum size of the site under the Building Act, and the non-party is the owner of the land above the minimum size of the site under the Building Act, and thus, the Plaintiff and the non-party

In the same purport, the decision of the court below is justified in holding that the disposition of this case by the defendant association was legitimate, which established a management and disposal plan by designating the plaintiff and the non-party as the purchaser of the 31-type apartment complex as the purchaser of the 42-type apartment complex under the premise that the plaintiff is the purchaser of the 31-type apartment complex, and by deeming the plaintiff and the non-party as the co-owner of the 4

In addition, according to the records, it is clear that Article 54 (7) of the articles of association of the defendant association was not newly established. Thus, the court below's rejection of the plaintiff's assertion on the premise that the above articles of association were newly established is just, and there is no violation of law as

All of the grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jae-in (Presiding Justice)