Restricting a reconstruction association member's unit allocation solely because the member shared a household with a son-in-law under resident registration is unlawful, a court has ruled. The ruling holds that a "household" under the Act on the Improvement of Urban Areas and Residential Environments should be determined by whether members actually share residence and livelihood as a living community, rather than by resident registration records.
According to the legal community on the 26th, the Seoul Administrative Court's Administrative Division 2 (presiding judge Kong Hyun-jin) recently ruled in favor of the plaintiff in a lawsuit filed by A against the housing reconstruction improvement project association of Apartment B in Songpa-gu, Seoul, seeking partial cancellation of a management and disposal plan.
A was a homeowner within the reconstruction project zone and held association membership. Planning to stay for an extended period at the residence of a son working overseas, A rented out the home and, before departure, temporarily moved the resident registration to the home of a daughter and son-in-law. However, when the son returned home due to an earthquake that occurred abroad, the overseas stay plan fell through, and A subsequently applied for association member unit allocation.
The association focused on the fact that, under resident registration, A formed the same household as the son-in-law. The son-in-law had already received association member unit allocation in another reconstruction project within a speculative overheating zone. The Act on the Improvement of Urban Areas and Residential Environments restricts a person who has received association member unit allocation in a speculative overheating zone, along with members of that household, from receiving association member unit allocation again for five years. The association determined that A was subject to the re-selection restriction and established a management and disposal plan designating A as a cash settlement target. A objected to this and filed the lawsuit.
The court found that the association's determination was wrong. "A maintained an independent livelihood separate from the children for a long period, and actually resided in the home in question for about 30 years," the court said. "There are also no circumstances suggesting that they lived together to form the same household after the children became independent."
The court further ruled: "Taking together A's previous living relationships, the circumstances of the resident registration transfer, and the living arrangements after the temporary move, the resident registration transfer was merely for temporary residence before departing overseas, and it is difficult to view it as intended to share livelihood and residence." It concluded, "A cannot be regarded as belonging to the same household under the Urban Renewal Law."
