〈Case concerning whether persons fall under "one household," "a single household," or "the same household" in the process of allocating units to members of a redevelopment project association〉

【Holding】

Whether "one household," "a single household," or "the same household" as referred to in the former part of Article 39(1)2 and Article 76(1)6 of the former Act on the Improvement of Urban Areas and Residential Environments, etc. means a household that actually shares residence and livelihood (affirmative)

【Summary of Decision】

"One household," "a single household," or "the same household" as referred to in the former part of Article 39(1)2 and Article 76(1)6 of the former Act on the Improvement of Urban Areas and Residential Environments (before amended by Act No. 17943 on March 16, 2021; hereinafter the "former Urban Improvement Act") or Article 26(1)1 of the former Gyeonggi-do Ordinance on the Improvement of Urban Areas and Residential Environments (before amended by Gyeonggi-do Ordinance No. 7249 on November 2, 2021; hereinafter the "former Gyeonggi-do Ordinance") should be construed to mean a household that actually shares residence and livelihood. The reasons are as follows.

① "Household (sedae)" is defined in the dictionary as "a group of persons who actually share residence and livelihood" or "a unit for counting groups of persons who actually share residence and livelihood," and is explained as a synonym of "gagu (household)." According to this dictionary meaning and the text, persons can fall under a "household" as referred to in each of the above provisions only if they actually share residence and livelihood. If each of the above provisions had intended to determine whether persons fall under "one household," etc. solely on the basis of formal criteria such as registration on the resident registration record, the statute itself would have defined "household" by adding language such as "persons registered on the same household resident registration record" or "persons registered together on the household resident registration record."

② The reason the former Urban Improvement Act and the former Gyeonggi-do Ordinance contain each of the above provisions is to realize the so-called "one household, one housing unit" principle in improvement projects. The purpose of the "one household, one housing unit" principle is to protect the property rights of association members by adjusting the interests among owners of land, etc. within the improvement zone, while at the same time preventing a decline in the profitability of improvement projects by curbing speculation in land, housing, etc. in improvement projects. Therefore, determining whether persons constitute one household on the basis of whether they actually share residence and livelihood, and allocating a housing unit to each of the persons who do not in fact share a common residence or livelihood, does not undermine the above purpose in any way. Conversely, if whether persons constitute one household were determined solely on the basis of formal criteria such as registration on the resident registration record, this would lead to the conclusion that persons who actually share residence and livelihood but merely maintain separate resident registrations as a matter of form could receive allocation of multiple housing units, giving rise to the evil of failing to prevent so-called "sham household separation" disguised for the purpose of speculation, which directly contradicts the purpose of the "one household, one housing unit" principle.

③ Under the first part of the latter sentence of Article 39(1)2 of the former Urban Improvement Act, a "spouse and unmarried lineal descendants under 19 years of age" are deemed one household regardless of whether they share a household and have the status of one allocation recipient as one association member, so where multiple owners of land, etc. consist solely of persons in such a relationship, the association as the project implementer need not separately determine whether they constitute one household. And even if, in the remaining cases, whether persons constitute one household is determined on the basis of whether they actually share residence and livelihood, the association as the project implementer may first determine whether persons constitute one household on the basis of public records such as the resident registration record, and where doubt arises as to such determination through the submission of opinions or objections by owners of land, etc. or interested parties, or other circumstances brought to the association's attention, it may receive additional documents or materials and investigate and confirm on that basis whether residence and livelihood are actually shared, thereby minimizing any hindrance to the prompt and stable progress of the project. In particular, an association implementing a redevelopment project under the former Urban Improvement Act has the status of an administrative entity that performs certain administrative functions as prescribed by statutes within the scope of its purpose, and may request and receive from its members documents, etc. necessary for the implementation of the project on the basis of the association's articles of association, etc.; therefore, it is difficult to say that such investigation and confirmation is impossible or difficult from the association's standpoint.

【Referenced Statutes】

Articles 39(1)2, 74(1) and (4) (see current Article 74(6)), and 76(1)6 of the former Act on the Improvement of Urban Areas and Residential Environments (before amended by Act No. 17943 on March 16, 2021); Article 63(1)3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Improvement of Urban Areas and Residential Environments (before amended by Presidential Decree No. 33046 on December 9, 2022)

(Source: Supreme Court Decision 2022Du50410, March 27, 2025 | Judicial Information Disclosure Portal, Precedents)