The Supreme Court ruled that the criteria for the 'same household' for redevelopment union members to receive allocation rights must be verified based on whether they actually share residence and livelihood, not just on their resident registration. This is the first time the Supreme Court has presented the criteria for judging the meaning of 'same household.'
The Supreme Court's Special Second Division (Chief Justice Oh Kyung-mi) recently overturned a ruling in a lawsuit filed by three members of a redevelopment area in Seongnam, Gyeonggi Province against the Housing Redevelopment Maintenance Business Association to confirm the existence of their allocation rights and returned the case to the Suwon High Court. Earlier, the second trial ruled against the three members.
The three individuals who were members of the redevelopment association applied for allocation in 2019. A and B, a married couple, applied for one dwelling with A as the representative, while A's brother, C, applied for one dwelling individually.
However, the issue arose because B, the sister-in-law, and C, the brother-in-law, were registered at the same address on their resident registration. Both were listed as household members of A and C's father. However, B was living in the United States at that time and C was living in Korea, so their actual residences were different.
The association determined that the three individuals constituted 'one household.' Although A and B were registered as different households, they were deemed to be in the same household because they were married. Additionally, C, who had the same head of household registered as B, was also considered as being in the same household, leading to the conclusion that all three were part of one household. Consequently, the association allocated only one dwelling to the three individuals. The former Gyeonggi Province Urban and Residential Environment Maintenance Ordinance stipulates, 'If multiple allocation applicants belong to one household, they shall be regarded as one allocation target.'
The three individuals filed a lawsuit with the court to cancel the association's illegal allocation measures. They argued, 'Although we were registered as the same household at that time, we did not actually reside together, so we cannot be considered as “one household.”' They claimed, 'Each of A, B, and C should be granted one allocation right for a dwelling.'
The first trial ruled in favor of the three individuals. The first trial court stated, 'Considering that B had been living overseas for most of the duration of the allocation application, B and C were living independently as separate households, and therefore do not correspond to one household.' It concluded that 'the decision to recognize only one allocation right for the three was unlawful.'
Unlike the first trial, the second trial ruled against the three individuals. The second trial court commented, 'Whether they are household members forming the same household can only be determined formally by the resident registration tables prepared in accordance with the resident registration law.' It added that 'the argument from the three individuals that 'same household' should be interpreted as residing in the same household in a substantive sense is not acceptable.'
The Supreme Court overturned the second trial's judgment again. The Supreme Court stated, 'The dictionary definition of 'household' should be seen as synonymous with 'a group of people who virtually share their residence and livelihood.'
The Supreme Court also noted, 'At the time when the association established the management and disposal plan regarding the allocation rights for the three individuals, B was residing in the United States and C was residing in Korea, which indicates that they were not actually sharing residence and livelihood. Thus, they should not be deemed as 'one household.' It concluded that 'the second trial had errors in misunderstanding the legal principles regarding the interpretation of 'same household' that impacted the ruling.'