[공사중지가처분][공2000.1.15.(98),122]
[1] Whether a landowner in an urban redevelopment district may seek the suspension of construction due to a redevelopment project from the land owned by the redevelopment cooperative after the authorization and public notice of the management and disposal plan was given (negative)
[2] In a case where a redevelopment association under the Urban Redevelopment Act consents to the use and profit-making of the land owned by the landowner within the redevelopment district, whether the redevelopment association may agree to the restoration of the land (negative)
[1] Since the landowner in the redevelopment area where the right to use and make profits from the land is restricted under the Urban Redevelopment Act and the obligation to transfer the ownership of the land to the redevelopment cooperative in the future cannot seek the transfer of the land on the ground that he/she is the landowner within the redevelopment project area after the authorization and public notice of the management and disposal plan, it is not permissible to seek the delivery of the land on the premise that he/she can seek the delivery of the land.
[2] Since there is no authority to designate or modify the redevelopment area to the redevelopment cooperative, which is the developer of the redevelopment project under the Urban Redevelopment Act, the redevelopment cooperative cannot agree to the restoration within the redevelopment area, which means the change of the designated redevelopment area, even if it gives consent to the landowner of the land within the redevelopment area to use or make profits from the land owned, and the same applies even before the management and disposal plan is authorized and publicly announced.
[1] Articles 38 and 39 of the Urban Redevelopment Act / [2] Articles 4 and 34 (8) of the Urban Redevelopment Act
[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 95Da33566 delivered on January 24, 1997 (Gong1997Sang, 630)
Appellant 1 and one other (Law Firm Squa, Attorneys Park Jong-dong et al., Counsel for the re-appellant)
Seoul High Court Order 99Ra34 dated May 17, 1999
All reappeals are dismissed.
The grounds of reappeal are examined.
The landowner in a redevelopment project zone shall naturally become a partner of the redevelopment project (Article 14 of the Urban Redevelopment Act), and the person who succeeds to the ownership of the land in the project zone after the public announcement of the implementation of the redevelopment project shall naturally succeed to the former owner's status (Article 6 of the same Act); when there is authorization or public announcement of the management and disposal plan for the redevelopment project, the landowner in the project zone shall not use or benefit from the land until the public announcement of the sale is made (Article 34 (8) of the same Act) unless the project implementer's consent is obtained; when the construction under the redevelopment project is completed and the public announcement of the sale is made, the partnership members shall acquire or pay liquidation money for the land and constructed facilities sold in lots as prescribed by the management and disposal plan, and at the same time lose the rights to the previous land (Articles 39 and 38 of the same Act). The same applies to the redevelopment project zone designated by the redevelopment project zone, under the premise that the landowner in the redevelopment project zone is its owner within the redevelopment project zone after its authorization or public announcement.
The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error of law as to urban redevelopment.
The grounds of reappeal cannot be accepted.
Therefore, all reappeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Jack-dam (Presiding Justice)