Law Firm Dongi, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

[Defendant-Appellee]

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

The fact that the plaintiff is a housing redevelopment association established by Seo-gu Pdong 3 for the purpose of implementing a housing redevelopment project with respect to 20,722 meters of land in the Seo-gu, Busan for the purpose of implementing the housing redevelopment project, and the fact that the defendant added the authorization conditions (hereinafter referred to as "the conditions of this case") stated in the attached list to the plaintiff on March 12, 2008 is not a dispute between the parties.

2. Whether the condition of this case is legitimate

A. Article 65(2) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) provides that an infrastructure for rearrangement newly installed by a project implementer who is not the head of a Si/Gun or a housing construction project shall gratuitously vest in the State or a local government to manage the infrastructure (hereinafter “Regulation”) and an infrastructure for rearrangement owned by the State or a local government to be abolished by the implementation of a rearrangement project shall be gratuitously transferred to the project implementer within the extent equivalent to the installation cost of the newly installed infrastructure (hereinafter “after the latter provision”). The former provision does not stipulate the nature of deprivation of and restriction on the property rights of a project implementer, but is a mandatory provision to uniformly determine the project implementer’s status in the future by prescribing the ownership of public facilities, etc. in the project district. The purpose of the latter provision is to consider the project implementer’s property losses arising from the gratuitous attribution of the infrastructure newly installed by a private project implementer in accordance with the former part of the Act within the scope equivalent to the installation cost of the newly installed infrastructure and to preserve the latter part of the infrastructure within the scope of the State or local government without compensation.

B. According to the following facts: Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 5's evidence 1, 2, and Gap evidence 1 to 4 as to the instant case, even if the Plaintiff's implementation of a housing redevelopment project, the improvement infrastructure, which is disused due to the Plaintiff's implementation of the housing redevelopment project, is the aggregate of 3,822m of roads, ditches 2,038m2, public office buildings, and 91m2, added the condition that the Plaintiff purchase at a cost as 1,753,767,00m2. On the other hand, the Plaintiff's new improvement infrastructure, which is constructed by the Plaintiff, can be excluded from the scope of installation costs of the State or local government's new improvement infrastructure to the effect that the provision of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Housing cannot be applied to the Plaintiff without compensation for the installation costs of the State or local government's new improvement infrastructure to the extent of installation costs newly constructed by the Plaintiff, regardless of the fact that the provision of this case's improvement based on the floor area ratio cannot be applied to the Plaintiff's construction cost ratio.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the condition of this case added by the defendant should be revoked as it is illegal, and the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Park Hyun-chul

Judges Lower Efficiencies