Constitutional Court upholds ban on land division for apartment complexes

The Constitutional Court ruled that a legal provision prohibiting the division of land underlying apartment complexes does not violate the constitution, rejecting a challenge brought by a private kindergarten operator. The court found that restricting land partition requests is a justified measure to preserve the stability of collective living arrangements and the structural foundation of condominiums.

The case centered on Article 8 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Collective Buildings, which bars co-owners of land from requesting division if a building subject to separate ownership stands on that site. A petitioner who operated a private kindergarten on a plot within an apartment complex in Ulsan argued that the blanket ban infringed upon their property rights and conflicted with laws protecting educational facilities.

In its decision announced Feb. 26, the court held that the social function of land and the necessity of maintaining shared residential spaces outweigh the individual right to demand partition. The justices noted that allowing unrestricted division could create confusion over land boundaries and jeopardize the management of common areas essential for all residents.

The ruling clarified that the restriction applies regardless of whether the specific portion of land hosts a separate facility, as distinguishing based on building use would undermine the uniform application needed for community stability. However, the court emphasized that the law permits requests for land areas exceeding what is strictly necessary for the building's use.