[1] Requirements for co-owners of multi-family houses to be eligible for parcelling-out of multi-family houses constructed by household redevelopment projects

[2] Whether Article 7 of the Addenda to the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Improvement of Urban and Residential Environments ( December 30, 2003) violates the principle of equality under the Constitution (negative)

[1] Article 48 (2) 6 and (7) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, Article 52 (1) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, Article 24 (2) 3 of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, Article 7 of the Addenda ( December 30, 2003) / [2] Article 24 (2) 3 of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, Article 7 of the Addenda ( December 30,

Plaintiff 1 and 2 others (Seoul District Court General Law Firm, Attorney Kim Un-sik, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association (Attorney Kang Sung-sung, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2008Nu14427 decided Nov. 19, 2008

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 48(2)6 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents”) provides that “where two or more persons co-own one house, only one house shall be supplied,” and Article 48(7) of the same Act provides that “the details of the management and disposal plan, methods and standards for management and disposal shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree,” and Article 52(1)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) provides that “Where the management and disposal is determined, owners of land, etc. within the improvement zone shall be sold in lots: Provided, That in the case of selling multi-family housing, owners of land, etc. who do not meet the standards for the amount, size, acquisition time or type prescribed by City/Do municipal ordinances may be excluded from the objects of parcelling-out as prescribed by City/Do municipal ordinances.” Meanwhile, Article 24(2)3 of the Ordinance on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Ordinance”).

According to the provisions of the above laws and ordinances, in order for co-owners of multi-family houses to be eligible for parcelling-out of multi-family houses constructed by house redevelopment project for each household, it is required to make a registration of shares or sectional ownership corresponding to each household before January 15, 1997.

However, according to the reasoning of the judgment below, the non-party was a multi-family house with which he can reside in the household on December 10, 1992, and newly constructed a multi-family house with the first and third floors underground above 198 square meters on the 198 square meters of Seongdong-gu Seoul (hereinafter omitted), his own ownership, and completed registration of preservation of ownership on his own name on July 29, 193, and on October 7, 1997, the registration of preservation of ownership was completed on the above building. Thus, it is obvious that the plaintiffs did not meet the requirements prescribed in Article 7 of the Addenda of the Ordinance of this case, and the court below determined that each of the plaintiffs is not eligible for sale. In the same purport, the court below is justified.

In addition, the purport of Article 7 of the Addenda to the Ordinance of this case is to reflect the reality that a multi-family house is traded separately by household with independent structure, and the corresponding registration of share is completed, and thus it is practically possible to carry out independent transaction by household by the method of transferring the registration of share ownership, it is exceptionally recognized as an object of parcelling-out by household of multi-family house. However, in order to prevent the harmful effects of the act such as the so-called “share of share” for the purpose of acquiring a large number of houses supplied under a housing redevelopment project, it is deemed that the registration of share is required to be completed by a certain time. This is reasonable in light of the transaction situation of multi-family house and the reality of the legal relationship of house parcelling-out according to a housing redevelopment project, and therefore, Article 7 of the Addenda to the Ordinance of

The court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on Article 7 of the Addenda to the Ordinance as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

Therefore, all appeals are 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 on the bench.

Justices Yang Chang-soo (Presiding Justice)