Court: "Relocation Registration for Redevelopment Guryong Village Must Be Accepted If for Actual Residence Purpose"

Seoul Administrative Court in Yangjae-dong, Seoul. / Photo by Seoul Administrative Court

[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin, Legal Affairs Specialist] A court ruling has stated that even in areas undergoing urban development projects, change-of-residence registrations for the purpose of actual residence must be accepted.

On the 4th, according to the court, the Administrative Division 2 of the Seoul Administrative Court (Chief Judge Shin Myung-hee) ruled in favor of an octogenarian man, Mr. A, in a lawsuit against the head of Gaepo 1-dong, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, who had refused to accept his change-of-residence registration.

The court stated, "Considering various circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff registered his change of residence with the intention of living at the registered address for more than 30 days," and added, "The defendant’s disposition based on a different premise is unlawful."

After his wife, with whom he lived, passed away, Mr. A registered his residence last July in Guryong Village, where his son is the head of the household.

However, the local community center refused to accept the registration, stating, "Guryong Village is an area designated as an urban development project zone with established development plans and published topographic maps, and therefore, change-of-residence registrations are restricted."

In response, Mr. A filed an administrative lawsuit against the head of Gaepo 1-dong.

During the trial, Mr. A’s side argued, "Around the time of my wife’s death, I decided to live with my son’s family and resided at the registered address," and "Although I registered with the intention of residing for more than 30 days, the refusal violates Article 6 of the Resident Registration Act."

Article 6, Paragraph 1 of the Resident Registration Act obligates mayors, county governors, and district heads to register persons who have an address or residence in their jurisdiction with the intention of residing for more than 30 days, in accordance with the Act.

The Supreme Court has previously ruled that if it is recognized that a change-of-residence registration was made with the intention of actual residence for more than 30 days, the administrative authority cannot refuse it.

Meanwhile, the Gaepo 1-dong office argued that since the urban development project is already significantly underway, it is difficult to acknowledge Mr. A’s claim of actual residence under such conditions.

However, the court accepted the circumstances, stating, "It is understandable that the 85-year-old plaintiff, who had long lived with his spouse, moved to live with his eldest son after his spouse’s death and thus changed his residence registration."

Furthermore, "According to the plaintiff’s mobile phone call origin data, from April 8, 2021, to January 18, 2022, the call origin was near the registered address," adding, "It appears that the plaintiff mostly lived at or near the registered address during this period."

The court also noted, "The Gaepo 1-dong community center official conducted three unannounced visits to the registered address to investigate whether the plaintiff was residing there, each time confirming the plaintiff’s presence and the existence of his clothing and other belongings."

The court concluded, "The defendant’s claim contradicts legal principles, and considering the relocation and compensation measures established by the Guryong Village project implementer, which suggest that residents will take a considerable time to complete relocation, it cannot be concluded that the plaintiff lacked the intention to reside for more than 30 days," thus ruling in favor of Mr. A.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.