beta
(영문) 부산고등법원(창원) 2016.08.18 2016나20728

물건인도 청구

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

Ⅰ. The Defendant’s judgment on the main defense and its related matters may fully acquire land possession by carrying out administrative vicarious execution pursuant to Articles 43 and 89(1) of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects. However, the instant lawsuit that actually seeks to transfer land without taking such procedures is filed. As such, the instant lawsuit is not a legal interest in the lawsuit.

Article 43 of the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation therefor shall provide that "the owner of land or person concerned or any other person who is not a landowner or person concerned and is entitled to the land to be expropriated or used or any goods on such land shall be delivered or transferred to the project operator by no later than the commencement date of expropriation or use," and Article 89 (1) of the same Act provides that "Where any person liable to perform his/her obligations under this Act or any disposition taken under this Act fails to perform or complete such obligations within the fixed period or where it is difficult for him/her to perform such obligations within the fixed period, or where it is deemed that allowing him/her to perform such obligations substantially undermine the public interest, the project operator may apply for vicarious execution, as prescribed by the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act. In such cases, the Mayor/Do Governor or the head of a Si/Gun

In light of the language, contents, etc. of Article 89(1) of the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works Projects, the project implementer is not required to seek the fulfillment of the duty of administrative vicarious execution first.

In addition, the requirements and procedures for enforcement are different.

Therefore, the project implementer filed a lawsuit for performance without carrying out administrative vicarious execution.