B. Purport of the provisions of Article 13(1) of the Housing Site Development Promotion Act and criteria for determining whether the expropriated land is unnecessary

B. The purport of Article 13(1) of the Housing Site Development Promotion Act is to enable the project implementer to repurchase all or part of the land acquired by the project implementer when it becomes unnecessary to implement the project, and it is formally limited to the cancellation or modification of the designation of a planned area, the cancellation or modification thereof, or the cancellation or modification of the approval of a development plan or implementation plan, but it shall be deemed that the repurchase right has been acquired when all or part of the expropriated land, etc. becomes unnecessary to implement the project for any reason. Whether the expropriated land, etc. is unnecessary or not shall be determined reasonably in light of all the circumstances, such as the purpose of the relevant housing site development project, contents of the housing site development plan and implementation plan, details and scope of the relevant housing site development project, the relevant development plan and implementation plan, relationship with the relevant

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. On the first ground for appeal

Article 71(1) of the Land Expropriation Act provides that if the whole or part of the expropriated land becomes unnecessary due to an alteration of the project within 10 years after the date of acquisition through consultation or the date of expropriation after the project approval or due to other reasons, the owner of the land at the time of expropriation or his general successor (hereinafter referred to as the “re-owner”) may repurchase the land by paying to public project operators an amount equivalent to the compensation paid for rights other than the ownership of the relevant land and land within 10 years from the date of acquisition through consultation or expropriation. The purport of the provision is that even if the original owner of the land, etc. has received lawful compensation for the price of the land from the project operator, it does not lose ownership of the land at his own own voluntary intention, and thus it is unnecessary to recover ownership of the land, etc. according to the original owner’s intention and the alteration of the development plan or the date of expropriation within 9 years from the date of sale through consultation or within 10 years from the date of expropriation. It is necessary for public project operator to reasonably cancel the designation of the whole or part of the expropriated land.

Although there is no improper point in the reasoning of the court below, the court below determined that the land of this case cannot be deemed as unnecessary for the public project solely on the grounds stated in its reasoning, which the court below determined in the same purport as above, is just, and it cannot be deemed that there is no error as the theory of lawsuit in the judgment below. There is no ground to

2. On the second ground for appeal

The judgment of the court below as to the point out of the theory of lawsuit is justified in light of the relation of the evidence as stated by the court below, and it cannot be viewed that there is an error of law that misleads the facts in violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, and there is no error of law that misleads the judgment of the court below as to the determination of the evidence belonging to the exclusive jurisdiction and the recognition

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)