After the landowner passed away, one piece of land he owned was inherited by his family and was divided into several parts. Over time, this land was redeveloped, but since none of the family members registered it, on paper, it was considered as one piece of land. In this case, can the redevelopment association allocate only one dwelling? A ruling stating that this is not the case was issued for the first time by the Supreme Court.
According to the legal community on the 29th, the Supreme Court's Third Division (Chief Justice Oh Seok-jun) confirmed the appellate ruling of partially favoring the status confirmation of the four individuals, including Mr. A, against the B Dwelling Redevelopment Maintenance Business Association.
In June 2005, Mr. A and the other three purchased four pieces of land that the B Association was in the process of redeveloping. The four pieces of land were originally one, and the landowner Mr. C passed away in 1980, after which his family divided it before selling it to Mr. A and the others.
However, the B Association allocated only one dwelling for these four pieces of land. The B Association argued that this was because the previous landowners registered late.
The right assessment standard date set by the 'former Seoul City Urban Maintenance Ordinance' for the B Association was December 30, 2003. They stated that only land with ownership registrations completed before this date would be recognized for allocation rights.
However, the family of the former landowner Mr. C inherited the land in 1980 and did not register ownership for 25 years. They only completed the registration in May 2005, after the standard date.
The B Association claimed, 'Because the registration was late and as of the standard date, December 30, 2003, this land was considered as one piece on paper, it is correct to allocate only one dwelling.' In response, Mr. A and the other three filed a lawsuit demanding 'one dwelling each for everyone.'
The first trial favored the B Association's argument and ruled against Mr. A and the other plaintiffs. However, the second trial overturned this decision and issued a partial ruling in favor of the plaintiffs. The court stated, 'Given that Mr. A and the other two individuals hold equity of at least 90 square meters (㎡), it is correct for them to each receive one dwelling, totaling two dwellings.' However, 'the remaining two plaintiffs must combine their land to exceed 90 ㎡ in area, thus qualifying as co-allocation applicants for one dwelling.'
The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the second trial. The court stated, 'Even if the inheritance occurred and the actual ownership changed but the registration took place after the standard date, if one holds equity of over 90 ㎡, they should be acknowledged as a single allocation applicant.' It emphasized that regardless of the registration timing, the land was practically divided along with ownership, so if the equity area condition is met, they should be recognized as a single allocation applicant.
A Supreme Court official noted, 'This is the first time the Supreme Court has made an explicit judgment in similar cases.'