207Guhap4115 Confirmation of the right of sale

00

Bank, 18 District Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association

August 2008 8.20

September 10, 2008

1. The plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims are all dismissed.

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

The primary claim: the part of the management and disposition plan approved by the head of Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on October 25, 2007 that the defendant decided to be liquidated shall be revoked.

Preliminary Claim: The portion determined to be KRW 17, 331, and 200 against the plaintiff in the above management and disposition plan shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter referred to as the "Do Government Act"), the defendant is a cooperative established for the purpose of improving housing redevelopment project (hereinafter referred to as the "project in this case") by making three gold-dong, Seongdong-gu, Seoul as a project implementation district of the 632 large scale 20, 721 large scale 20 square meters and as a project implementation district under the Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter referred to as the "Do Government Act"), and has obtained approval from the head of Sung-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government.

B. The Plaintiff is a co-owner who owns 66/161 of 161 of 161 of 161 of 'the instant site' located within the instant project implementation zone and 6/72 of 240 of 'the instant housing site' (hereinafter "the instant housing"). Meanwhile, other than the Plaintiff, 25.89 of 161 of 161 of 'the instant housing site' among the instant housing site, and 39/72 of 240 of 240 of 'the instant housing site' are co-owners.

C. On October 25, 2007, the Defendant: (a) at the general meeting of partners, designated the Plaintiff as the person subject to liquidation, excluding the Plaintiff from the person subject to parcelling-out; and (b) set up a management and disposal plan including the content that the remaining co-owners are designated as the person subject to parcelling-out; and (c) obtained the authorization from the head of Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on January 23, 2007, by designating the liquidation amount as the person subject to parcelling-out; and (d) setting up the management and disposal plan including the content that the remaining co-owners are designated as the person subject to parcelling-out; and (e) designating the liquidation amount as the person subject to parcelling-out by excluding the Plaintiff from the person subject to parcelling-out; and (e) calculating the liquidation amount as the sum of the liquidation amount as 17, 331, and 200 won; and (e) obtained the authorization from the head of Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on January 23, 2007.

【Ground of recognition】 Evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 10, 10, 1 and 2 of Evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The primary claim

The instant house is a de facto multi-family house in which each household can independently reside with the building permit before the introduction of the multi-family house system, and the registration of each share is completed. Thus, one person must be recognized for each household as the object of parcelling-out. Nevertheless, the Defendant’s management and disposal plan that designates the Plaintiff as the object of liquidation and designates only the remaining six co-owners as the object of parcelling-out has been approved. As such, the instant disposition is unreasonable in terms of the interpretation of the provisions related to the Do administration and law, as well as is unreasonable in terms of the interpretation of the Do administration and management plan, and was abused and abused by discriminating between the other co-owners and the Plaintiff without reasonable grounds, and violates the principle of protecting trust in the opinions expressed through the process of public inspection and dismissal for the application for the approval of the management and disposal plan, so the disposition of this case must be revoked.

(2) Preliminary Claim

Even if not, the portion of the settlement money against the plaintiff is determined as KRW 17, 331, and 200, and the settlement money is determined as KRW 17, 331, and 200, and the price of the share owned by the plaintiff is calculated excessively without reflecting the market price of the share owned by the plaintiff.

(b) Relevant statutes;

As shown in the attached Form.

(c) Facts of recognition;

(1) The instant house is a house of the first floor, the second floor, the second floor, the second floor, the second floor, and the 80 square meters of the total floor area of 240 square meters on May 22, 1989, after the non-party A was newly constructed with a building permit obtained on November 13, 1989, and the approval for use was obtained on December 21, 1989, and the registration for ownership preservation was completed on December 21, 1989. The instant house is registered as the first floor, the first floor, the second floor, the second floor, each building, and the 80 square meters of the house, and the total area of 240 square meters on July 24, 240.

(2) After constructing the instant house, A had the shares 6/72 of the said house and 6/161 of the instant site left for 6/161 of the remaining shares, and transferred the shares to Nonparty B and C on February 5, 1990, to Nonparty D on March 10, 1990, and transferred the shares to Nonparty E, F, and G on May 1, 1990. The shares owned to Nonparty 2 were transferred to Nonparty 3 on March 13, 1999, and the shares owned to Nonparty 2 transferred to Nonparty 2 on March 13, 199, and the shares owned to Nonparty 3 on May 25, 199, and the shares owned to Nonparty 2 were transferred to Nonparty 3 (the shares owned to Nonparty 2 on February 18, 194, and the shares owned to Nonparty 3 on May 25, 201, respectively.

(3) The Plaintiff owns 6/72 of the instant housing units. However, the part owned and used by the Plaintiff is not registered in the general building ledger and the copy of the building register as 20m (hereinafter “the instant rooftop bank”) of the roof tower facilities with school bathing rooms. The remaining co-owners occupy and use the first floor, the first floor, the second floor, and the second floor for each household on November 20, 2006. The Plaintiff leased the instant rooftop bank to Nonparty N in KRW 5 million as the lease deposit and KRW 2 million as the monthly rent.

【Unstrifed facts, Gap evidence Nos. 3, 5, and 6, Gap evidence Nos. 7-1, 2, Gap evidence Nos. 8-1, 8-4, Gap evidence Nos. 9-1 through 6, Gap evidence No. 10, Gap evidence No. 11-4, Eul evidence No. 11-4, Eul evidence Nos. 4 and 5, the fact-finding results with the head of Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Government, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

D. Judgment on the main claim

(1) Interpretation of the relevant statute

(A) Article 2 subparagraph 9 (a) and Article 19 (1) of the Do Government Act provide that in the case of a housing redevelopment project, its members shall be the owners of land or buildings located within the redevelopment and rearrangement zone, and that where the ownership and superficies of land or buildings belong to several co-owners, one representative shall be appointed, and Article 24 (1) 1 of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Residential Environments (amended by Ordinance No. 4601 of December 26, 2007; hereinafter referred to as the "Ordinance") and Article 8 (1) 1 of the defendant's management and disposal plan (No. 1-2 of the No. 9) provide that the co-ownership of multi-family house shall be divided into 9 (No. 2-1-3 of the shares of multi-family house) among the applicants for parcelling-out and multi-family houses as of the expiration date of the unit sale period, Article 24 (1) 9 of the Do Government Ordinance No. 27

(B) In full view of the relevant laws and the provisions of the Defendant’s articles of incorporation, the instant housing

In order for the plaintiff who is a co-owner on the real estate register to be recognized as a person eligible for parcelling-out by an independent person who is not a co-owner, the pertinent house is a de facto multi-family house which obtained a building permit as a detached house prior to the introduction of the multi-family house system on April 21, 1990, and has to complete the registration of transfer of shares or the registration of division for each household before January 15, 1997. However, the purport of the provision of Article 7 of the Addenda of the Seoul Metropolitan Government Ordinance is that the registration of transfer of shares or the registration of division for each household shall be completed in accordance with social norms, if the purport of the provision of Article 7 of the Addenda of the Seoul Metropolitan Government Ordinance is that the de facto multi-family house is not a legally partitioned multi-household house to reflect the transaction reality that is traded as the same as that of the multi-household house, and that it is not a multi-household house or multi-household house, and that it is not an exception to the area of the relevant house.

(2) Determination

According to the above facts, although the plaintiff newly built the housing of this case and obtained approval for use on November 13, 1989, and the plaintiff owned 6/72 shares of this case among the above housing and occupied and used 20 meters above the first floor, separate from each household of the first floor, the first floor, and the second floor, but the above facts and arguments revealed as follows. The apartment bank of this case is an unauthorized building that has not been registered on the general building ledger and the copy of the register, and its size cannot be seen as 20 square meters. The plaintiff's shares were merely 6/140 of the housing of this case and they cannot be seen as having been used without permission for the remaining housing of this case since the plaintiff's share in this case did not correspond to the share of the building of this case which is owned by the plaintiff 1 and 2, and it cannot be seen as having been used without permission for use of the remaining housing of this case as 9/10 of the building of this case.

Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

E. Determination on the conjunctive claim

In full view of the contents of evidence No. 2-1, No. 2, Eul evidence No. 6-1, No. 6-2, Eul evidence No. 7-1, and Eul evidence No. 7-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings, the defendant may recognize the fact that, based on each appraisal result, the defendant requested the Korea Land Appraisal Corporation and the Sildong Land Appraisal Corporation's stock company (hereinafter "each appraisal corporation") to assess the value of the right to land and buildings located within the area where the project of this case is implemented, and the fact that, based on the appraisal result, the liquidation amount is calculated in total of KRW 14,546,200, and the appraised value of the land on the basis of each appraisal result, as the liquidation amount is calculated in total of KRW 17,31,200, and KRW 200,000.

However, as asserted by the Plaintiff, it is difficult to recognize the settlement money against the Plaintiff solely on the statement of evidence No. 7-1, No. 2, No. 11-4, and No. 12, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims are without merit, and they are all dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge shall transfer the number of judges

Judgment of the court below

Judge Lee Yong-soo

Related Acts and subordinate statutes

Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas

Article 2 (Definitions of Terms)

The definitions of terms used in this Act shall be as follows:

9. The term “owner of land, etc.” means the persons falling under the following items:

(a) In cases of a residential environment improvement project or a housing redevelopment project or an urban environment improvement project, within a rearrangement zone;

The owner or superficies of the land or building located;

Article 19 (Qualifications, etc. for 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 land, etc.

Owners (in the case of a housing reconstruction project, limited to those who consent to the housing reconstruction project), and land; and

section 1 of this section, if the ownership and superficies of a building belong to two or more persons, one representative

shall be regarded as partnership members.

Enforcement Decree of the Urban and Residential Environment Improvement Act

Article 52 (Standards, etc. for Management and Disposal)

(1) In cases of housing redevelopment projects and urban environment rearrangement projects, management and disposal under Article 48 (7) of the Act shall be performed.

The following methods and criteria shall be followed:

1. Where a Mayor/Do Governor restricts the scale of housing units to be sold, he/she shall supply housing below such scale;

2. The site of one building shall be provided for a lot of land: Provided, That in the case of a housing complex, such lot of land shall be provided for;

subsection (1) of this section.

3. It shall be sold to the owners of lands, etc. within the relevant rearrangement zone (excluding persons with superficies; hereafter the same shall apply in this paragraph); and

only, in the case of the sale of multi-family housing, the amount, size, acquisition time, or type prescribed by the City/Do Ordinance

Owners of land, etc. who do not meet standards shall be subject to sale as prescribed by City/Do Ordinance.

may be excluded.

Article 2 (Definition) of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Improvement of Urban and Residential Environments (amended by Ordinance No. 4601 of December 26, 2007)

The definitions of terms used in this Ordinance shall be as follows, and the definitions of terms shall be as follows:

1. The term “existing unauthorized buildings” means unauthorized buildings falling under any of the following items:

(a) Unauthorized buildings registered in the ledger of unauthorized buildings as of December 31, 1981;

(b) Unauthorized buildings shown in the second aerial photography taken in 1981;

(c) No permission which has been verified that construction was made before December 31, 1981 on the public register, such as the payment ledger of property tax;

A provisional building

(d) Residential buildings with a total floor area of not more than 85 square meters, which are virtually constructed before April 8, 1982;

1982 on the record, such as the first aerial photography taken in 1982, or on the record, such as the property tax payment ledger, etc.

Unauthorized buildings with confirmation that they were constructed before April 8;

(e) Article 5 of the Addenda to the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works;

The establishment of an association among unauthorized buildings (including buildings which have not obtained approval for use and authorization for completion)

buildings prescribed by section 50

Article 24 (Those, etc. Eligible for Sale of Housing Redevelopment Projects)

(1) Persons eligible for parcelling-out of multi-family housing constructed for a housing redevelopment project under Article 52 (1) 3 of the Decree.

Persons shall be the owners of lands, etc. falling under any of the following subparagraphs as of the base date of management and disposal plans:

1. Houses (existing unauthorized buildings and buildings actually used for residence) among the previous buildings;

(including) the owner of the property;

(2) Where it falls under one of the following subparagraphs, several applicants for parcelling-out shall be regarded as one parcel out:

3. Where several persons own one house or parcel of land: Provided, That December 30, 2003.

The share area of land owned prior to a co-ownership shall be as prescribed by subparagraph 1 of Article 25 of the Building Bylaws.

Persons whose scale is above the scale shall not be the same.

The supplementary sheet shall be December 30, 2003

Article 7 (Transitional Measures concerning Criteria for Selling Multi-Family Houses in Lots)

A multi-household house (including a de facto multi-family house which obtained a building permit before the introduction of the multi-family house system with a detached house before April 21, 1990) having completed the registration of equity or sectional ownership by household on or before January 15, 1997 shall be eligible for parcelling-out only one person for each household, notwithstanding the provisions of Article 24 (2) 3.

【Defendant’s Articles of Incorporation

Article 9 (Qualifications, etc. for Members)

(1) The partners shall institute a lawsuit against the owners of or superficies on the land or buildings within the project implementation district (hereinafter referred to as the "land, etc.").

They are referred to as ‘responding person'.

(2) The right of ownership, superficies, etc. under paragraph (1) means such right as prescribed by the Civil Act: Provided, That a case shall be

Where livestock products are not permitted, the existing affairs prescribed by the City/Do Ordinance (hereinafter referred to as the "Si/Do Ordinance") established at the time of enactment.

members of an unauthorized building owner only if it proves that the building is its owner;

recognized as such.

(4) If the ownership and superficies of the land or buildings belong to two or more persons, one representing such persons.

The number of members shall be regarded as the representative member. In this case, the representative shall be designated as the representative member and the attached Form shall be appointed.

A written consent to the appointment of a representative partner shall be prepared and reported to the Cooperative, and the juristic act as a member shall be reported thereto.

The representative member shall be conducted by the representative member.

Defendant’s draft management and disposition plan

Article 8 (Standards for Members Eligible for Sale)

1. Persons eligible for parcelling-out of collective housing among sites and constructed facilities shall apply for parcelling-out under Article 46 (2) of the Act;

The management and disposal system for the expiration date of the period for application for parcelling-out under Article 48 (2) 5 of the Act (hereinafter referred to as "management and disposal system").

At present, the following shall be a person:

1) Housing among the previous buildings (existing unauthorized buildings and buildings actually used for residence)

(including) the owner of the property;

2. In cases falling under one of the following subparagraphs, several applicants for parcelling-out shall be regarded as eligible for parcelling-out:

3) Where several persons own one house or parcel of land: Provided, That December 30, 2003

The share area of land owned by a co-ownership prior to the date is subject to the provisions of Article 25 subparagraph 1 of the Building Bylaws.

not less than one person, but not more than one person, and shares by household on or before January 15, 1997, or

Multi-family housing which has completed the registration of divided ownership (the sole owner before introducing the multi-family house system on April 21, 1990)

The de facto multi-family house which has completed equity or divided registration with the construction permit granted shall include the de facto multi-family house)

Only one person for each household shall be eligible for parcelling-out only in the number of households permitted to construct a multi-family house.

Finally.