Whether the site is subject to the regulation of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Site in cases where a house is used as an office for changing its use without permission.

According to the provisions of subparagraphs 1 and 2 of Article 2 of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites, the land used for the current residential purpose as well as the land that is highly likely to be used for the use of the future residential purpose is regarded as the housing site, and the building in the public record is used for the purpose other than the current residential purpose, even if it is currently used for the purpose other than the current residential purpose, if the building is constructed so that it can be used for the original residential purpose in light of the fact that it can be easily used for the long time without undergoing any special procedure, and the building in the public record is used as the office without permission without due cause, barring special circumstances, it is reasonable to view the site of the building as still

Subparagraph 1 and 2 of Article 2 of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Southern Development Co., Ltd.

The head of Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 93Gu5897 delivered on December 22, 1993

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, in light of the purpose of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), Article 21 (2) of the Act, which stipulates that if the actual owner is different from the owner on the public register, the actual owner shall be liable for the payment of excess ownership charges, and Article 34 (1) of the Act, which provides that the Minister of Construction and Transportation shall investigate the ownership of housing and the status of the use of the housing site for a certain period, etc., whether the land constitutes a housing site subject to regulation under the "Act" should be determined on the basis of its substance regardless of the use specified in the public register, and the judgment below held that the part of the building on the land of this case which the plaintiff company was permitted to be a multi-family housing and registered as such on the public register was used as an office, even though it did not follow the procedure for change of use under the Building Act since March 1, 1978, the land of this case

However, in order to promote the stability and effectiveness of the people's residential life by inducing the people to own housing sites and promoting the supply of housing sites, "Act" regulates land where a house is constructed (Article 2 subparagraph 1 (a) of the Act), land where a permanent building is not constructed among land the category of which is a building, as prescribed by the Presidential Decree (Article 2 subparagraph 1 (b) of the Act), and land for development under Article 15 (Article 15) as a housing site subject to "Act", and define housing (Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the Act). As such, land which is currently used for residential purposes as well as land which is highly likely to be used for the purpose of the future housing (Article 2 subparagraph 1 (b) of the Act), and land which is currently used for residential purposes as a housing site (Article 2 subparagraph 1 (b) of the Act), and land which is currently used for non-residential purposes as a housing site (Article 2 subparagraph 1 (b) of the Act).

If such a building site is not considered as a housing site, it is difficult to secure the effectiveness of ‘law' and it will be an unfair result to favorable the person who committed the illegal act.

The provisions of Paragraph 2 of Article 21 or Paragraph 1 of Article 34 of the Act cannot interfere with the above conclusion.

Therefore, under the premise that the court below should be determined on the basis of the substance regardless of the use entered in the public register, and the part of the building site of this case which was permitted for multi-family housing use but is used as an office without permission does not constitute a housing site, and thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the housing site under the Act, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The appeal pointing this out has merit.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed and remanded, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Ansan-man (Presiding Justice)