Representative Director** *

Law Firm Bernero, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

[Defendant-Appellee]

Litigation Performers Kim Jae-he, Ga-ho, Ma-ho

Attorney Park Young-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellant

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff is a co-owner of 32/122, 2/122, 692 among the Daejeon Seo-dong** Site (hereinafter referred to as the “instant land”). The Defendant is the operator of the Daejeon Sung-gu Urban Development Project (hereinafter referred to as the “instant project”) for the land of 493, 687 square meters (hereinafter referred to as the “instant project area”), including the instant land.

B. On January 14, 1998, the Daejeon Metropolitan City Mayor: (a) designated the land of 477,020 square meters of the Seosung-gu, Seoam, Dong, Dong, Dong, and 020 square meters as the zone for the land readjustment project of Daejeon Sung-gu, Daejeon, and publicly notified the decision on urban planning and the cadastral winner (the notification of Daejeon Metropolitan City No. 1998-4). (b) Article 77(2) of the former Urban Development Act (wholly amended by Act No. 8970, Mar. 21, 2008); and (c) Article 2 [Attachment 3] of the Ordinance on Entrustment of Administrative Affairs of Daejeon Metropolitan City delegated the Defendant the authority on the instant project pursuant to [Attachment 3].

C. On December 27, 2005, the Defendant changed the area of an urban development zone to 488, 942 square meters: The implementation period: five years (the target year 2010), and the implementation method: The public notice of the designation of an urban development zone (the alteration) and the development plan (the alteration) (the Notification No. 2005 - 59) by changing the area of the urban development zone to 48, 942 square meters: the public notice of the implementation plan; the public notice of the alteration of the implementation plan and the topographical map on September 28, 2005; the public notice of the alteration of the implementation plan and the topographical map on February 1, 2007 - the public notice of the alteration of the area of the urban development zone to 2006, 2007, 300,700,000,000,000 won; the public notice of the implementation plan and the public notice of the alteration of the area to 37.

D. After that, the defendant extended the period of execution on August 30, 201 to September 27, 2012, and changed the project cost to KRW 1,0734,5 million (No. 2011-69 of the Daejeon Metropolitan City Notice No. 201-69), and on June 29, 201, "the alteration to the area of an urban development zone to KRW 493,687" to "the alteration to the area of the urban development zone to KRW 493,687 (No. 2012-59 of the Daejeon Metropolitan City Notice No. 2012, Aug. 22, 2012)" to "the alteration to the development plan to KRW 1,300,000,000 for KRW 1,300,000 for each implementation plan to be the development plan."

E. According to the amendment of the self-development plan and implementation plan on August 22, 2012, the remaining portion of the total project cost of the instant case was additionally organized including 12.96 billion won (parking lot, post management work, etc.) and nine million won.

F. On August 29, 2012, the Defendant publicly announced a disposition of replotting on September 26, 2012, via a public announcement of the completion of construction (Seongdong-gu, Daejeon Metropolitan City Notice No. 2012-757), a public announcement of the change of a replotting plan on September 3, 2012 (Seongdong-gu, Daejeon Metropolitan City Notice No. 2012-768), and a public announcement of the change of a replotting plan on September 20, 2012 (Seongdong-gu, Daejeon Metropolitan City Notice No. 2012-839, hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”).

G. On May 16, 2007, the average reduction rate by the announcement of the designation of the land scheduled for substitution was 48.11%, and on September 20, 2012, the average reduction rate was changed to 48% on September 46.

【Unstrifed facts, Gap’s evidence Nos. 3 through 7, 16, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 through 15, 22

each entry, the purport of the whole pleading, including each number), of each entry,

2. Whether the lawsuit in this case is lawful

A. Defendant’s defense

1) If the disposition of this case is confirmed to be null and void or cancelled, the parcel number prior to replotting was restored, and the remaining co-owners of the land of this case lose their ownership, and thus, the lawsuit of this case constitutes an act of disposal of the jointly owned property. Since the Plaintiff holding only shares below the majority of the land of this case does not have the right to dispose of the jointly owned property, the lawsuit of this case cannot be brought independently, and therefore, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful.

2) After a replotting disposition became effective after the public notice of the land substitution disposition, only a part of the land substitution procedure is removed, and there is no legal interest in seeking nullification of the land substitution disposition as there is no way to change the replotting disposition. Therefore, the main claim in the lawsuit in this case seeking nullification of only the replotting disposition of the land in this case is unlawful.

3) While the benefits the Plaintiff gained due to the invalidity or revocation of the instant disposition were insignificant, the instant lawsuit constitutes an abuse of rights, in view of the following: (a) the fact that the number of the lot number prior to the instant disposition of replotting was restored and the instant disposition of replotting requires a new replotting procedure; and (b) the purpose of the instant lawsuit is to inflict pain on the other party and inflict losses on the other party for the recovery of development gains; and (c) the instant lawsuit constitutes an abuse of rights.

B. Determination

1) As to the defense that the consent of all co-owners is necessary

A replotting disposition is a disposition to enable an implementer to secure the location and area of the land within the development project zone in accordance with the replotting plan for each parcel of land before the implementation of the development project and the part of the right, such as the lease existing on the land, after the development project, to secure the location and area of the land after the development project. Ownership over the previous land is extinguished and new rights and obligations relationship is created on the land. Accordingly, the right of a person subject to replotting is transferred to a land substitution but the ownership over the previous land is extinguished by the final cause and new ownership is granted to the land developer for the land secured by the development project. On the other hand, when a replotting disposition becomes null and void or cancelled, the right prior to the replotting disposition such as the restoration

In light of the above, even if the disposition in this case is confirmed to be null and void or revoked, the new right arising from the disposition of land substitution cannot be deemed to have been extinguished, and thus, the lawsuit in this case does not constitute an act of disposal. Therefore, this part of the defendant's defense, which was premised on the fact that the lawsuit in this case constitutes an act of disposal of the jointly owned property, is without merit, cannot be further examined.

2) As to the defense that there is no legal interest

A replotting disposition under Article 40 of the Urban Development Act is a disposition to issue replotting according to a replotting plan after a project implementer completes construction works for an urban development project by replacing the whole land substitution plan zone and completing construction works for an urban development project. Since only a part of the replotting plan is removed, unless all the procedures for replotting are followed from the beginning, unless all the procedures for replotting are followed from the beginning, and thus, there is no legal interest in seeking revocation or nullification of part of a replotting disposition (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Du2289, Feb. 28, 2013). There is no legal interest in seeking revocation or invalidity of a replotting disposition as a whole.

In light of the above legal principles, the Plaintiff asserted that the entire disposition of this case was lawful in light of the legal interest, as it contests the illegality of the remaining construction cost, which was appropriated through “the modification of the self-development plan and the implementation plan on August 22, 2012,” etc. Therefore, this part of the Defendant’s defense is without merit.

3) As to abuse of rights defenses

If the exercise of the right is to cause pain to the other party, and there is no benefit to the person who exercises the right, and if it can be objectively deemed that it violates social order, the exercise of the right is not allowed as an abuse of rights, and the subjective requirement that the exercise of the right is to cause pain or damage to the other party can be ratified by objective circumstances that show that the exercise of the right holder's legitimate interest is lacking. Whether the exercise of the right constitutes an abuse of right should be determined by individual and specific cases (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da40422, Nov. 27, 2003, etc.).

In light of the above legal principles, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit of this case cannot be deemed as an abuse of rights, in light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff is the owner of the land located in the instant project area and there is an economic interest in seeking confirmation of invalidity of the instant disposition or seeking revocation, such as that the depreciation rate may be adjusted through nullification or revocation of the instant disposition; and (b) the Plaintiff’s lawsuit of this case constitutes an abuse of rights. Accordingly

3. Judgment on the main claim

A. On August 22, 2012, the Plaintiff asserts that the instant disposition itself or its premise is null and void, as the modification of its development plan and its implementation plan, is serious and obvious as follows.

B. Therefore, in order for a defective administrative disposition to be null and void as a matter of course, it must be objectively obvious that the defect violated important parts of the law and regulations (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da1260, Jun. 14, 2001). There are unlawful or unreasonable defects as alleged above in the development plan and implementation plan of August 22, 2012, or the disposition of this case. Even if such defect is deemed to be serious or obvious to the extent that the disposition of this case is null and void, the Plaintiff’s primary claim is without merit.

4. Determination on the conjunctive claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant disposition shall be revoked as it is unlawful due to the following defects.

1) procedural defect

A) The consent of the owner and the absence of the approval of the Daejeon Metropolitan City Mayor

According to Articles 4 and 17 of the Urban Development Act, if the development plan and implementation plan are modified, the defendant must obtain the consent of the landowner and obtain the approval of the Daejeon Metropolitan City Mayor. Nevertheless, the defendant revised the development plan and implementation plan on August 22, 2012 without going through it.

B) Illegal appropriation of the remaining construction cost

The Defendant appropriated the remaining construction cost of KRW 12.966,9 million as additional costs through the amendment of the self-development plan and implementation plan on August 22, 2012. It is in itself unlawful to include the remaining construction cost in the cost as construction items not reflected in the previous development plan and implementation plan. In addition, even though the subject of the decision of the Urban Development Act amendment pursuant to Article 40 subparagraph 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the Urban Development Act should be publicly notified, the Defendant did not publicly notify the detailed contents of the remaining construction cost only for the change of total project cost.

2) Contents defects

According to Article 70 (2) of the Urban Development Act, project costs, such as proceeds from the sale of land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay, may not be used for any other purpose other than the purpose of the relevant urban development project. In the case of urban development projects by replotting, project costs remain, the implementer shall adjust the reduction rate or alter the development plan, etc., and pay the balance to the landowners Eul. The Defendant, despite the completion of the project in this case, did not refund the balance of the proceeds from the sale of land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development recompense for development outlay for the remaining construction costs not related to the project in this case, set up a plan to use or use the remaining construction costs of KRW 12.96 billion, which is not related to the project

① According to the Defendant’s public announcement of the completion of construction on August 29, 2012, “infrastructure land (park, green belt, river, reservoir, parking lot, road)” is reverted to Daejeon Metropolitan City and Yong-gu Office pursuant to Article 66 of the Urban Development Act. Since it is written, the cost necessary for the “construction of facilities” and “maintenance of road and road facilities” among the remaining construction cost items and the “maintenance of facilities”, “maintenance of road and road facilities”, “maintenance of parks and green belt areas” should be borne by the general accounts of Daejeon Metropolitan City and Y-gu office.

② Since Daejeon Metropolitan City and the Neong-gu Office are part of the "project for the improvement of local rivers" to be implemented irrespective of the project in this case, the construction cost should be borne by Daejeon Metropolitan City and the Neong-gu Office's general accounts.

③ The construction of a parking lot is already completed at the time of the public announcement of construction completion, and is not reflected in the development plan and implementation plan.

④ The 'crime prevention system construction works' and 'crime prevention system construction works' are not reflected in the development plan and implementation plan, and the expenses related thereto shall not be reflected in the project cost of this case that the defendant, who is the management agency, should bear after the completion of the project.

(b) Relevant statutes;

As shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) As to the assertion of procedural defect

A) Whether there is illegality due to the absence of consent of the owner

(1) Article 4(4) of the Urban Development Act requires the consent of landowners and landowners equivalent to at least 2/3 of the area of land in the area to which the replotting method applies to the formulation of a development plan for an urban development project using replotting method. The same shall also apply to the alteration of a development plan (excluding any alteration of a minor port prescribed by Presidential Decree) to implement the replotting method. Article 4(5) of the same Act provides, “If an implementer of an urban development project falls under Article 11(1)1 (the State or a local government) of the Act when formulating or amending a development plan to implement an urban development project by replotting method, the designating authority does not require the consent of landowners, notwithstanding paragraph (4) of the same Article.

(2) According to the above provisions, if an implementer of an urban development project is a local government, it is not necessary to obtain the landowner’s consent when modifying the development plan. Since the Defendant, a local government, is the implementer of the instant construction project, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s principal head who requires the consent of the owner is without merit.

B) Whether there was an illegality due to the absence of authorization of the Daejeon Metropolitan City Mayor

(1) Article 17(2) of the Urban Development Act provides that "an implementer (excluding cases where the designating authority is an implementer) shall obtain authorization from the designating authority for an implementation plan formulated pursuant to paragraph (1)." Meanwhile, Article 79(2) of the Urban Development Act provides that "the authority of a Si/Gun/Gu under this Act may be partially delegated to the head of a Si/Gun/Gu as prescribed by Municipal Ordinance of the City/Do." Article 2 of the Daejeon Metropolitan City Ordinance on Delegation of Administrative Affairs [Attachment 3] of the said Act provides that "an urban development project of less than 660,000 square meters within the scope of the affairs belonging to the authority of the Daejeon Metropolitan City Mayor shall be designated as a district unit planning zone, but it shall be notified to the Mayor of a district unit development project, authorization of an implementation plan, authorization for alteration of an urban development project, and [including the determination of an urban management plan and a district unit plan, and the authority to make a public announcement and public announcement of alteration thereof to the Mayor].

(2) In light of the above provisions, the project of this case is entrusted to the defendant with the authority of the Daejeon Metropolitan City Mayor on the designation of an urban development project according to the Daejeon Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Delegation of Administrative Affairs with the target area 493, 687 and 49 m2, the target area of the project of this case, "public announcement on the modification of the development plan", "authorization of the actual plan and the modification of the plan", etc. Therefore, the defendant is the person entitled to designate the project of this case. Accordingly, since the defendant's modification of the implementation plan does not require the authorization of the Daejeon Metropolitan City Mayor, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

C) Whether it is unlawful by including the remaining construction cost

(1) We examine whether it is illegal that the Defendant appropriated the remaining construction cost not reflected in the original development plan and implementation plan through the modification of its development plan and implementation plan on August 22, 2012.

Administrative plans refer to the activity standards or the establishment thereof established to realize a certain quality at a certain point in the future by integrating and coordinating administrative means related to professional and technical division related to administration in order to achieve a specific administrative objective. Administrative agencies have relatively broad freedom in formulating and determining specific administrative plans (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du2467, Jul. 10, 2014).

In light of this, considering the characteristics of the urban development plan that takes place over a long period of time, it is possible for the Defendant to later reflect the construction items that had not existed in the previous development plan and implementation plan considering the characteristics of the project district in the project district in the project plan. Therefore, even if the Defendant subsequently reflected the remaining construction costs that had not existed in the previous development plan and implementation plan in the total project cost, it cannot be deemed unlawful

(2) We examine whether the Defendant’s failure to give public notice of the detailed contents of the remaining construction cost is illegal only with respect to the change of total project cost.

Article 9(1) of the Urban Development Act and Article 15(1) and (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that when a development plan is modified, the designation authority shall publicly notify the name of the urban development zone, location and size of the urban development zone, the purpose of designating the urban development zone, the implementer (referring to the proposer in cases where the implementer is not designated) and the location of its main office, the implementation period of the urban development project, and matters related to the implementation method and the method of the urban development project.

According to the statements in Eul evidence 23, "project costs (amended.... financial resources): 107, 345 million won (amended...) and 130,303 million won (amended.....) and 130,345 million won (amended.....) in the revised development plan and the implementation plan on August 22, 2012. The defendant stated "the total project cost" as "the revised plan and implementation plan on August 22, 2012." Accordingly, the plaintiff's assertion that the revised plan and implementation plan on August 22, 201 and the remainder of the revised plan are the same as that on the revised plan, and there is no reason for the plaintiff's assertion that this part of the revised plan are the same as that on the revised plan.

2) As to the assertion of defect in contents

A) The term “administrative plan” means a comprehensive and coordination of related administrative means to achieve a specific administrative objective, such as the establishment, maintenance, and improvement of a city’s construction, based on professional and technical judgments regarding administration, which is set as a base for the realization of a certain order at a certain time in the future. The relevant statutes only provide for abstract administrative goals and procedures, but do not provide for the contents of the administrative plan, and thus, the administrative body has a relatively broad freedom in formulating and determining the administrative plan. However, the freedom of such formation, which the administrative body has, is not unlimited, but also limited to the legitimate comparison of the interests of the persons related to the administrative plan between public and private interests as well as between public and private interests. Accordingly, if the administrative body fails to pay a balance of interests when it becomes aware and determines the administrative plan, or omits matters to be included in the list of interests to be considered in the balancing of interests, or if there is lack of legitimacy and objectivity, it shall be deemed that the administrative plan is unlawful. < Amended by Act No. 12101, Feb. 1, 2012>

The foregoing legal doctrine likewise applies to the determination of the scope of construction works and the appropriation of expenses incurred by an urban development project in the course of performing an urban development project in accordance with the Urban Development Act, and further, the implementer of an urban development project shall be deemed to equally apply to the determination of the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay (calculated rate) while the implementer of an urban development project implements an urban development project

B) In full view of the aforementioned evidence and the statements Nos. 16 and 17 as a whole, the following facts may be acknowledged in light of the overall purport of the pleadings.

① When the Defendant sold KRW 1,1442,400,000,000 as the purchase price of the instant project at KRW 1,14.4 billion on the original project plan, the Defendant returned part of the difference to the landowners in the project area, including the Plaintiff, for the settlement money for the shortage of land substitution, and revised the development plan and the actual plan on August 22, 2012, on the ground that the part of the land was appropriated for the increased expenditure items.

② According to the “project cost and funding plan attached to the revised development plan and the letter of authorization for the revised implementation plan on August 22, 2012”, “project cost” can be calculated as a rough project cost after the implementation of the implementation plan and the appraisal by the evaluation institution, but at the present stage, the project cost is calculated as a rough project cost. The remaining construction cost (parking, post management construction, etc.) out of the details of the change in the project cost increased by KRW 12.96 billion with the remainder of the construction cost. A funding plan shall be appropriated from the revenue of the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay, liquidation money, and other (interest, etc.). The remaining construction cost is specified as follows.

A person shall be appointed.

③ “Construction cost reflecting the requirements of a facility supplementation and related agency” is necessary for services costs, repair works, additional construction works, etc. that were not anticipated at the time of the initial development plan, such as construction of traffic impact analysis improvement plans, implementation verification and investigation services, preparation of road ledgers, construction of waterworks signs, construction of landscape stone in a park, and installation of stuffs.

④ The construction cost of Yusungcheon is to be implemented by the Seongbuk-gu Office in connection with the improvement project of the local river located in the project district of this case, which is intended to promote the improvement project of the Yusungcheon-do and the Yusung 700m that is located in the project district of this case. However, even though it is anticipated that if the special account of the project of this case independently promoted the improvement project of the project of this case, it would be required to cover 6 billion won, it would be 2.2 billion won with the subsidization of national expenses and Si expenses.

⑤ The construction cost of parking lot creation is the cost of packing six public parking lots installed within the Gyeyang-gu District, construction cost of old sculptures, etc., and the cost of building a crime prevention system is the cost of installing CCTV for general crime prevention and anti-public crime prevention in the Gyeyang-gu District and for electrical construction.

6. The construction cost of a 'project cost for a connecting road outside the earth' is the cost for packing a road of 20 meters in width and 450 meters in length connecting a zone with a road outside the earth.

7) Of the total cost of 12.96 billion won planned as the remaining construction cost, the amount executed up to the present shall remain as follows: "part of the construction cost to supplement snow and reflect the requirements of the related agencies," "construction cost for the maintenance of roads and road facilities," "expenses for the maintenance of parks and green areas," "construction cost for the creation of parking lots," "crime prevention system construction cost" in 3.92 billion won, and the cost for the construction has not yet arrived at the time of its implementation, in part of "construction cost for flexible upstream upstream connected to the outside of the world," "construction cost for the construction cost for the facilities," "construction cost for the construction cost for the parking lot," and "construction cost for the construction cost for the crime prevention system," in which the amount has been reduced compared to the initial plan, and the balance of "construction cost for the construction cost for the parking lot" in 9.4 billion won and the "construction cost for the construction of the crime prevention system."

C) Examining the following circumstances revealed by the above facts, namely, ① the construction of infrastructure for the instant project area and the maintenance and management of infrastructure, etc. by the occupants in the instant project area, ② there is no circumstance to deem the remaining construction project as part of the instant urban development project to be implemented as part of the instant urban development project, and there is no other circumstance to deem it for any purpose other than the instant urban development project. The Defendant’s calculation of the remaining construction cost of the instant case through the modification of its development plan and implementation plan on August 22, 2012 accords with the purport of the Urban Development Act aimed at promoting planned and systematic urban development, creating a pleasant urban environment, and contributing to the promotion of public welfare, and thus, the depreciation rate calculated based on the instant disposition is also appropriate. Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims are without merit and they are all dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges senior promotion

Judges Jeong-chul

Relevant statutes

Gu Urban Development Act (wholly amended by Act No. 8970 on March 21, 2008)

Article 77 (Delegation, etc.)

(2) Part of the authority of the Mayor/Do Governor under the provisions of this Act may be delegated to the head of a Si/Gun/Gu, as prescribed by municipal ordinance of the Si/Do.

/ former National Land Planning and Utilization Act (amended by Act No. 12974, Jan. 6, 2015)

Article 2 (Definitions)

The terms used in this Act shall be defined as follows:

4. The term "urban/Gun management plan" means the development, maintenance, and repair of the Special Metropolitan City, Metropolitan Cities, Special Self-Governing Cities, Special Self-Governing Cities, Sis, Guns;

land use, traffic, environment, landscape, safety, industry, information and communication, health, welfare,

The following plans concerning security, culture, etc.:

(a) A plan on designation or alteration of special-purpose areas and special-purpose districts;

(c) Development restriction zones, urban natural park zones, urbanization-coordination zones (urban zone), and fishery-resources protection zones;

A plan for designation or modification;

(c) A plan for the installation, maintenance, or improvement of infrastructure;

(d) Plans for urban development projects or maintenance projects;

(e) Plans for designation or alteration of a district unit planning zone and district unit planning;

Urban Development Act

Article 1 (Purpose)

The purpose of this Act is to promote planned and systematic urban development, create a pleasant urban environment and promote public welfare by prescribing matters necessary for urban development.

Article 2 (Definitions)

(1) The terms used in this Act shall be defined as follows:

1. The term "urban development zone" means an urban development zone designated and publicly notified pursuant to Articles 3 and 9 to implement an urban development project;

(b) means an area;

2. The term "urban development project" means a residence, commerce, industry, distribution, information and communications, ecology, culture, and beam in an urban development zone;

The project implemented to create a complex or market with functions such as building and welfare, etc.;

of this section.

(2) The terms used in any Act on National Land Planning and Utilization shall be non-as specifically provided for in this Act.

This Act shall apply to the matters.

Article 4 (Formulation and Amendment of Development Plans)

(1) Where a designating authority intends to designate an urban development zone, it shall formulate an urban development project plan for such urban development zone.

(n) The formulation of a development plan (hereinafter referred to as "development plan") shall be made: Provided, That a public proposal for or a development plan shall be made pursuant to paragraph (2).

When designating an urban development zone in an area prescribed by Presidential Decree, after designating an urban development zone.

The development plan may be formulated.

(2) If necessary for promoting an urban development project in a creative and efficient manner, the President.

A proposal for a development plan may be conspired to reflect the selected proposal in the development plan as prescribed by the Ordinance.

In such cases, where a subscriber to the selected development plan meets the qualification requirements under Article 11 (1).

may be designated in preference to the relevant subscriber as an implementer.

(3) Each designating authority shall directly or directly conduct the relevant central administrative agency under Article 3 (3) 2 and (4).

The head of the Gu or the head of the Si (excluding the Mayor of a large city)/Gun/Gu, or urban development company under Article 11 (1).

A development plan may be modified at the request of the operator of the project.

If a designating authority intends to formulate a development plan for an urban development project by replotting method, the method of replotting shall be appropriate.

Owners of land equivalent to at least 2/3 of the area of land in the area to be used and landowners of such area;

The consent of at least one half of the total number of persons shall be obtained. The development plan shall be implemented by replotting.

The same shall also apply to any modification (excluding any modification to insignificant matters prescribed by Presidential Decree).

(5) Where a designating authority formulates or amends a development plan to implement an urban development project by replotting method.

If an implementer of an urban development project falls under Article 11 (1) 1, it shall be discussed notwithstanding paragraph (4).

need not obtain consent from the owner of the land.

The formulation or amendment of a development plan to implement all of an urban development project by replotting method;

When an implementer of an urban development project falls under an association referred to in Article 11 (1) 6, such association;

members of an association equivalent to not less than 2/3 of the area of an urban development zone at a general meeting after such establishment;

Designation of a development plan by resolution with consent of at least 1/2 of the total number of members of the relevant region;

Notwithstanding paragraph (4), the consent of the landowner shall be deemed obtained in cases of submitting to the holder.

Article 9 (Publication of Designation of Urban Development Zones, etc.)

(1) Where the designating authority designates an urban development zone or formulates a development plan under the proviso to Article 4 (1).

The public notice of such fact in the Official Gazette or Official Gazette, as prescribed by Presidential Decree, and the right to designate a large city market.

A person shall make relevant documents available to the general public, and a person authorized to designate a large city which is not the Mayor shall open the relevant city.

Copy of relevant documents to the head of the Si (excluding the Mayor of a large city)/Gun/Gu having jurisdiction over the development area;

the Governor of a Special Self-Governing Province who is the designating authority and relevant documents shall be sent to the Governor of a Special Self-Governing Province.

(other) The head of the Si/Gun/Gu shall make relevant documents available to the public for inspection. The change shall be made

the same shall also apply to allies.

Article 11 (Implementers, etc.)

(1) An implementer of an urban development project (hereinafter referred to as "implementer") shall be designated by the designating authority among the following persons:

(c) An urban development zone: Provided, That where the whole of an urban development zone is implemented by replotting, an landowner under subparagraph 5;

(b) An association shall be designated as an implementer referred to in subparagraph 6.

1. The State or local governments;

Article 17 (Preparation, Authorization, etc. of Implementation Plans)

(1) Any implementer shall implement an implementation plan for an urban development project (hereinafter referred to as "implementation plan") as prescribed by Presidential Decree.

(d) An implementation plan shall be prepared. In such cases, a district unit plan shall be included in the implementation plan.

(2) An implementer (excluding cases where the designating authority is an implementer) shall implement an implementation plan prepared pursuant to paragraph (1).

Authorization shall be obtained from the designating authority.

(3) Where a designation authority prepares or approves an implementation plan, if the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport designates authority, a Si/Do.

A market (excluding a large city market), if the Mayor/Do Governor finds an opinion of the private company or the large city market, or if the Mayor/Do Governor designates the market;

The head of the Gun/Gu shall hear opinions in advance.

(4) Paragraphs (2) and (3) shall apply mutatis mutandis to the modification or abolition of an implementation plan for which authorization has been granted: Provided, That the State shall be

Where minor matters prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs are modified, this shall not apply.

Article 18 (Public Announcement of Implementation Plans)

(1) Where a designating authority prepares or approves an implementation plan, it shall do so, as prescribed by Presidential Decree.

Public notice in the Official Gazette or the Official Gazette, and sending copies of the relevant documents to the implementer, and designating a large city market

A person shall make relevant documents available to the general public, and a person authorized to designate a large city which is not the Mayor shall open the relevant city.

Copy of relevant documents to the head of the Si (excluding the Mayor of a large city)/Gun/Gu having jurisdiction over the development area;

shall send the documents. In such cases, the Governor of a Special Self-Governing Province who is the designating authority and the relevant documents shall be received.

The head of the Gu (excluding the Metropolitan City Mayor)/Gun/Gu shall make it available to the public.

Article 34 (Land Secured for Development outlay, etc.)

(1) Any implementer shall appropriate funds for expenses incurred in an urban development project or as rules, articles of incorporation, implementation rules, or implementation plans.

for purposes set forth in this section, a given land may be designated as a reserved land without designating it as a substitute land;

Part of them may be designated as land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay and appropriated for expenses incurred in an urban development project.

Article 40 (Disposition of Land Substitution)

(1) Where any implementer completes works on an urban development project by the replotting method, it shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree without delay.

(1) The Corporation shall publicly announce the construction-related documents as prescribed by the Ordinance and make them available to the public.

(2) The landowners or interested parties in an urban development zone shall present their opinions to the implementer during the period of public inspection under paragraph (1)

A statement of opinion may be withdrawn, and the implementer in receipt of a written opinion shall verify whether the project results and the details of the implementation plan are met.

necessary measures shall be taken.

(3) No implementer shall submit a written opinion under paragraph (2) during the period of public inspection under paragraph (1) or comply with the submitted written opinion.

(d) If necessary, an application for inspection of completion by the designating authority or an application for an urban development project;

shall complete the proceedings.

(4) Where an implementer has undergone an inspection of completion by the designating authority (where the designating authority is an implementer, Article 51).

A replotting disposition shall be taken during the period prescribed by Presidential Decree. Article 41 (Liquidation Money)

(1) Where replotting is determined or excluded from the land entitled thereto, the previous land (Article 32) shall be excessive or deficient.

Where a project is implemented by multi-level replotting, buildings subject to replotting shall be included; hereinafter the same shall apply.

The location, category, area, soil, water quality, repair, use status, environment, and other factors of replotting and replotting;

Liquidation shall be performed in cash, comprehensively taking into consideration the matters concerned.

(2) Liquidation money under paragraph (1) shall be determined when a replotting disposition is taken: Provided, That liquidation money under Article 30 or 31 shall be determined.

When liquidation money is granted for land, etc. excluded from land subject to replotting, the liquidation money shall be determined.

of the corporation.

Article 42 (Effect of Land-Substitution Disposition)

(1) Any replotting determined in a replotting plan shall be deemed the previous land from the date following the date a replotting disposition is publicly announced.

(2) The land ownership of the previous land for which the land substitution plan has not been determined

shall be extinguished upon the expiration of the period specified in paragraph (1).

Article 70 (Restrictions on Use of Profits, etc.)

(2) Each implementer shall sell proceeds from the sale of land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay under Article 44, liquidation proceeds collected under Article 46, and Article 56 and Article 56.

Charges, subsidies, etc. under Articles 57 and 59 for any purpose other than the purpose of the relevant urban development project.

(2) may not be used in such manner.

(3) Earnings, etc. under paragraphs (1) and (2) may incur a balance after being used for the purpose of an urban development project.

the balance of its execution and an urban development project in the manner of expropriation or use under Article 21 by a local government;

The earnings accrued from the enforcement of the Act shall revert to the special account established in the relevant local government.

Article 79 (Delegation, etc.)

(1) The Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport shall partially exercise his/her authority under this Act, as prescribed by Presidential Decree.

A private company or the head of an affiliated agency thereof may be delegated, and a Si/Do Governor shall obtain approval from the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport.

Part of the delegated authority may be re-entrusted to the head of a Si/Gun/Gu.

(2) The Mayor/Do Governor's authority under this Act shall partially be the head of a Si/Gun/Gu, as prescribed by municipal ordinance of the City/Do.

It may be delegated to the head of the Gu.

【Enforcement Decree of the Urban Development Act

Article 15 (Public Announcement of Designation of Urban Development Zones and Formulation of Development Plans, Public Inspection, etc.)

(1) When a designating authority designates an urban development zone, the following matters pursuant to the former part of Article 9 (1) of the Act:

B Public notice shall be made in the Official Gazette or Official Gazette: Provided, That matters falling under subparagraph 7-2 shall be designated as an implementer.

(2) may be publicly announced after such notice.

1. Name of an urban development zone;

2. Location and area of an urban development zone;

3. Designation purposes of an urban development zone;

4. An implementer (referring to a proposer if the implementer has not been designated) and the lawsuit of the principal office thereof;

re-place

5. Period and method for implementing an urban development project;

6. Plans for land utilization and infrastructure;

7. Details of land prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (where designating an urban development zone, land tax pursuant to subparagraph 7-2;

(excluding cases in which the title is publicly announced)

7-2. Public announcement under Article 22 (1) of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects;

Details of land (limited to an area where an urban development project is implemented by expropriation or use)

8. Subparagraph 6 of Article 2 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, which is provided for the use of an urban development zone;

Where it is necessary to build green infrastructure outside an urban development zone, infrastructure outside an urban development zone;

Matters concerning the plan;

9. The period for applying for authorization of the implementation plan under Article 11 (8) 4 of the Act;

10. Methods of inspecting related books;

11. Matters concerning an urban/Gun management plan (an urban area and a district unit planning zone pursuant to Article 9 (2) of the Act);

(including matters deemed determined)

12. Other matters prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport.

(2) The designating authority shall formulate a development plan after designating an urban development zone pursuant to the proviso to Article 4 (1) of the Act.

Notwithstanding paragraph (1), if an urban development zone is designated, part of the matters referred to in the subparagraphs of paragraph (1).

(Matters referred to in paragraphs (1) 1 through 4, 7 and 10 must be included) and Article 9

Matters referred to in paragraph (1) 5 and 6 may be publicly announced. In such cases, each paragraph (1) shall be formulated if a development plan is formulated.

The following matters shall be publicly notified:

(3) When a designating authority amends a development plan, it shall revise the matters referred to in paragraph (1) 1 through 5 and the amendment thereof.

shall give public notice.

Article 40 (Public Announcement of Implementation Plans)

(1) Where a designating authority prepares or approves an implementation plan, the following matters pursuant to the former part of Article 18 (1) of the Act:

The following matters shall be publicly notified:

1. Name of the project;

2. Objectives of the project;

3. Location and area of an urban development zone;

4. The implementer;

5. Period for execution;

6. Methods of implementation;

7. The details of the decision on an urban or Gun management plan (including a district-unit plan);

8. Period and place for public inspection of books concerning the authorized implementation plan;

9. Public announcement or notification of authorization, permission, etc. deemed public announcement of an implementation plan pursuant to Article 19 of the Act;

【Enforcement Rule of the Urban Development Act

Article 20 (Applications for Authorization of Implementation Plans)

(1) An implementer (excluding cases where the designating authority is a implementer) shall concerning an implementation plan under Article 17 (2) of the Act.

When intending to obtain authorization, the following application for authorization for an implementation plan for an urban development project in attached Form 14:

The accompanying documents and drawings of each subparagraph shall be submitted to the designating authority.

1. Project costs and financing plans (including annual investment plans; hereinafter the same shall apply);

Ordinance on Delegation of Administrative Affairs to Daejeon Metropolitan City

Matters delegated to the head of the autonomous Gu among the affairs falling under the authority of the Daejeon Metropolitan City Mayor shall be as specified in attached Table 2.