[1] The legislative purpose of Article 19 (2) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents and Paragraph (2) of the Addenda to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents ( December 13, 2003), which limits the acquisition of the land, etc. of reconstruction project

[2] In a case where a housing reconstruction and improvement project association, which received the authorization of establishment before the enforcement date of Article 19(2) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, obtains the authorization of establishment (change) by incorporating a new land into a project site after the enforcement of the said Article, whether the transferee who received the transfer of ownership after the authorization of establishment from the new land owner

[1] The former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 7056, Dec. 31, 2003) has no provision on restrictions or requirements other than that on the qualifications of members of a rearrangement project, such as housing reconstruction, as amended by Act No. 7056 on Dec. 31, 2003, the purpose of Article 19(2) was to restrict the acquisition of the qualifications of members of a reconstruction project after the authorization of establishment of a rearrangement project association was to prevent speculative demand for real estate in an overheated speculative zone. In addition, Article 2 of the Addenda of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 7050, Mar. 18, 2005; Act No. 7201, Dec. 31, 2003; however, it appears that a person who already acquired the qualifications of a member of a rearrangement project under the amended Act No. 2130, Mar. 19, 2005>

[2] The transferee of land, etc. from the owner of the land, etc. in the rearrangement project for which the authorization for establishment of the housing reconstruction project association was obtained on or before December 31, 2003, which was the enforcement date of Article 19(2) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, shall not be deemed to obstruct the transferee of the land, etc. from obtaining the membership qualification, notwithstanding the amended provisions of Article 19(2) of the Addenda to the amended Act, if the first authorization for establishment of the housing reconstruction project association was made on or before December 31, 2003, even though the rearrangement zone was expanded later and the land, etc. in this case belongs to the rearrangement zone so expanded.

[1] Article 19 of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 7056 of Dec. 31, 2003), Article 19 (2) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, Addenda (amended by Act No. 7392 of Dec. 31, 2003) / [2] Article 19 of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 7056 of Dec. 31, 2003), Article 19 (2) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, Addenda (amended by Act No. 7392 of Mar. 18, 2005) (2) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents)

Suwon Apartment Housing Reconstruction and Improvement Project Association (Law Firm Eul, Attorneys Park Sung-hun et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Sungnam City

March 21, 2007

1. On September 29, 2006, the defendant's refusal to accept the part of changing the non-party 1 as a new partner among the plaintiff's alteration report for establishment of a reconstruction and consolidation project association is revoked

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 19, 2003, the Plaintiff Union was initially authorized to establish the first association with 205 members who consent to reconstruction from the Defendant, among the sectional owners of Samun apartment, on May 19, 2003, after the inaugural general meeting held on April 4, 2003, which was composed of the said sectional owners for the purpose of rebuilding of Samwon-gu, Sungnam-gu, Sungnam-gu, Seoul. Afterward, the Plaintiff Union was authorized to establish an association (change) adding additional consenters as its members on March 3, 2004 and October 22, 2004.

B. Upon the request of owners of detached houses and apartment houses in the vicinity of Sam Chang apartment, the Plaintiff Mutual Aid Association would promote a reconstruction project including the above detached housing site. Accordingly, the Defendant, on July 18, 2005, pursuant to Article 2005-443 of the Sungnam-si notification, made a public inspection for the formulation of a rearrangement plan to add the land around the Plaintiff Mutual Aid Association to the previous project site. The Governor of Gyeonggi-do announced on January 16, 2006 pursuant to Article 4 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, pursuant to Article 2006-24 of the Gyeonggi-do notification on January 16, 2006, announced the designation of a rearrangement plan and district that include the above surrounding land in the rearrangement project. Accordingly, the Plaintiff Mutual Aid Association applied for authorization of establishment (change) to the Defendant on May 22, 2006 after receiving the consent of rebuilding resolution and the consent of establishment from the neighboring land owners in the project site.

C. From July 4, 1989, Nonparty 2 owned approximately 3748-43 apartment houses (water omitted) (water omitted) that were newly incorporated into the project site as above. However, Nonparty 2 became a partner of the Plaintiff’s association after issuing a written consent to rebuilding and written consent to the establishment of the association on May 22, 2006. Nonparty 1 purchased the instant real estate from Nonparty 2 on April 22, 2006, and completed the registration of ownership transfer due to this reason on May 25, 2006. Accordingly, on June 7, 2006, the Plaintiff association applied for the authorization of establishment (change) to change the name of 20 association members including Nonparty 1, whose ownership was changed including Nonparty 1, to change the name of 20 association members, and the Defendant did not constitute the Defendant’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s rejection of the registration of change under the Addenda of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents.

D. On June 7, 2003, the discharge from active service was designated as an overheated speculation district.

[Reasons for Recognition] : Facts without dispute, Gap's 1 through 4, 6, Gap's 5 and 7's 1, 2's , and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination of legality of disposition

A. The plaintiff's assertion

On May 19, 2003, the Plaintiff Mutual Aid Association obtained the first authorization of establishment, and Nonparty 2 acquired the instant real estate from Nonparty 2 prior to that, as Nonparty 2 acquired the instant real estate from Nonparty 2, it falls under paragraph (2) of the Addenda of the Act, and thus, although the Plaintiff Mutual Aid Association was qualified, the instant real estate was additionally incorporated into the business site due to the authorization of establishment (change) on May 22, 2006, and thus, it was deemed that it was the land of the rearrangement project for which the authorization of establishment was obtained after December 31, 2003 and disposed

B. Relevant statutes

m. Urban and Residential Environment Improvement Act

Article 19 (Qualifications, etc. for Association Members)

(1) Members of a rearrangement project (excluding a rearrangement project implemented by the head of a Si/Gun or the Korea Housing Corporation, etc.) shall be landowners, etc., but when the ownership and superficies of land or buildings belong to two or more persons, one representative of such persons shall be deemed members.

(2) In cases of housing reconstruction projects within an area designated as an overheated speculation district under Article 41 (1) of the Housing Act, no person who has acquired (including all acts accompanying the sale, donation and other changes in rights, but excluding the case of transfer or acquisition due to inheritance or divorce; hereafter the same shall apply in this Article) a building or land in the relevant rearrangement project after authorization for establishment of the association under Article 16 may become a partner, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1): Provided, That the same shall not apply to a person who has acquired a building or land from the transferor where the transferor falls under any of the following subparagraphs:

In case of ‘AD' No. 7056, December 31, 2003 ‘A'>

(1) This Act shall enter into force on the date of its promulgation.

(2) Special cases concerning the qualification of members of a housing reconstruction project in a speculative zone)

Any person who has acquired a building or land from the partnership members (limited to those who acquired the status of partnership members before this Act enters into force) of a rearrangement project for which authorization for establishment of a housing reconstruction and consolidation project association has been obtained before this Act enters into force may acquire the qualification of partnership members, notwithstanding the amended provisions of Article

(1) Added District Court Decision 7056No. 7056, December 31, 2003>

(2) Special cases concerning the qualification of members of a housing reconstruction project in a speculative zone)

Any person who has acquired a building or land from the owners, etc. (limited to those who acquired a building or land before December 31, 2003) of the land, etc. for a rearrangement project for which the authorization for establishment of a housing reconstruction and consolidation project association has been obtained before this Act enters into force, may acquire the qualification of association members, notwithstanding the amended provisions of Article

(c) Markets:

In the case of a housing reconstruction project within an area designated as an overheated speculative zone, the transferee of the land or structure of the relevant rearrangement project after authorization for the establishment of the housing reconstruction project shall not be a partner (the main sentence of Article 19(2) of the Act), but the transferee of land, etc. may acquire the qualification of a partner (Article 2(2) of the Addenda) from the landowner, etc. of the rearrangement project (limited to the person who acquired land, etc. before December 31, 2003) who obtained authorization for the establishment of the housing reconstruction project association before December 31,

According to the above facts, as long as the real estate in this case was acquired after the authorization of establishment was granted within the area designated as the overheated speculative district and it does not fall under paragraph (2) of the Addenda, the issue is whether the land, etc. newly incorporated into the rearrangement project through the authorization of establishment (change) after December 31, 2003 should be considered as the land of the rearrangement project for which the authorization of establishment of the housing reconstruction and improvement project association was obtained before December 31, 2003, or as the land of the rearrangement project for which the new authorization was obtained after December 31, 2003.

Before the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents was amended by Act No. 7056 on December 31, 2003, the provisions on restrictions or requirements were not applicable to the qualifications of association members of rearrangement projects, such as housing reconstruction, in addition to the qualifications of land owners. Since the amendment was made by Act No. 7056 on December 31, 2003, the purpose of Article 19(2) was to prevent the acquisition of association members' qualifications even if the land, etc. of reconstruction projects are acquired after the authorization for establishment of a rearrangement project was newly established in an overheated speculative district, the acquisition of land, etc. of the reconstruction project was restricted. However, the purpose was to prevent speculative demand for real estate in an overheated speculative district, and Paragraph (2) of the Addenda was to prevent the acquisition of land, etc. by a cooperative member under the amended Act No. 3100, Dec. 31, 2003; however, the person who had already been acquired from a cooperative member under the amended Act No. 2319, Mar. 18, 20, 20019. 20.

As can be seen, a person who acquired land, etc. from the owner of a housing reconstruction project before December 31, 2003, including the land in the rearrangement project for which authorization was obtained for the establishment of the housing reconstruction project association, notwithstanding Article 19(2), if the initial authorization for the establishment of the housing reconstruction project association was before December 31, 2003 pursuant to Article 19(2) of the Addenda to the amended Act that the housing reconstruction project association can acquire membership status, it cannot be deemed that the person who acquired the land, etc. becomes a member of the rearrangement project after the extension of the rearrangement zone, and even if the land, etc. in question belongs to the rearrangement zone so expanded, it cannot be said that the person who acquired the land, etc. may acquire the land, etc. from the person who acquired the land, etc. before or after December 31, 2003, which goes beyond the legislative purpose of preventing speculative demand for reconstruction within the housing redevelopment zone, and thus, it cannot be readily concluded that the above interpretation goes against the legislative purpose of the amended Act.

Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful on a different premise.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Cho Jae-won (Presiding Judge) Kim Jong-chul