[2] In a case where the issue was whether the alteration of public works, which is the purpose of acquiring land through consultation, from the former road construction project to the housing redevelopment project, constitutes the alteration of public works under Article 91(6) of the former Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects, the case holding that the housing redevelopment project constitutes the alteration of public works, since it falls under the public works under Article 4 subparag. 5 of the former Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects, and thus, the exercise of the right of repurchase is restricted

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. The former Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation therefor, amended by Act No. 10239, Apr. 5, 2010, newly included “the conversion of public works” under Article 91(6) with respect to “the conversion of public works,” in which the exercise of the right of repurchase is restricted, as well as “the conversion of public works,” and Article 4 subparag. 5 newly included “the construction of houses or the formation of housing sites conducted by the State, local governments, government-invested institutions, local public enterprises, or persons designated by the State or local governments for the purpose of lease or transfer.” However, a housing redevelopment project implemented by the redevelopment association under the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 13677, Dec. 29, 2015; hereinafter “former Land Compensation Act”) in Article 4 subparag. 5 of the former Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation Therefor.

B. Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court determined that the change of the instant housing redevelopment project from the previous road construction project to the housing redevelopment project of this case does not constitute the change of the public works under Article 91(6) of the former Land Compensation Act, since the instant housing redevelopment project does not fall under the public works stipulated in Article 4 subparag. 5 of the former Land Compensation Act.

C. However, we cannot accept the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

1) According to the legal principles as seen earlier, since the instant housing redevelopment project belongs to the public works under Article 4 subparag. 5 of the former Land Compensation Act, it is reasonable to view that the change from the former road construction project to the instant housing redevelopment project constitutes the conversion of public works under Article 91(6) of the former Land Compensation Act, and accordingly, the Plaintiff’s exercise of the Plaintiff’s right of repurchase is restricted.

2) Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the conversion of public works, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench

Justices Kim Jae-hyung (Presiding Justice)