Meanwhile, Article 33 of the former Urban Development Act (amended by Act No. 8376 of Apr. 11, 2007; hereinafter “former Urban Development Act”) provides that “An implementer may appropriate a certain land for expenses incurred in an urban development project or for the purposes determined by the rules, articles of association, implementation rules, or implementation plan as a substitute land and determine it as a land in recompense for development outlay or a reserved land without designating it as a substitute land.” Article 41(5) provides that “The implementer of the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay under the provisions of Article 33 shall acquire the ownership of the land as of the day following the date when the land substitution plan is publicly announced: Provided, That the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay for development outlay under the provisions of Article 35(4) shall be acquired at the time when the purchaser of the land allotted for development outlay for development outlay completes the registration of ownership transfer; the right to substitute land in the previous land which is not determined in the replotting plan shall be deemed to be extinguished from the previous land substitution plan.”

According to Article 39(4) and (5) of the former Urban Development Act, an implementer shall, upon completion inspection conducted by a designating authority, notify a landowner of the matters prescribed in the land substitution plan and publicly notify the same, and transfer of rights according to the details prescribed in the land substitution plan through such land substitution disposition occurs. Meanwhile, according to Article 54(1) and (2) of the former Urban Improvement Act, a project implementer shall notify a purchaser of the matters prescribed in the management and disposal plan at the time of the public announcement of the completion of the authorization for completion of construction and the completion of construction, and shall publicly notify the purchaser of such matters in the official bulletin of the relevant local government. In light of the method and effect of the land substitution disposition and the public announcement for transfer of rights according to the management and disposal plan, the change of rights takes place according to such land transfer announcement. In principle, the effect of the land substitution disposition under the former Urban Development Act,

Examining the relevant provisions and legal principles, where a housing redevelopment project implementer establishes new land-owned recompenses that sell to persons other than the association members in the management and disposal plan for the purpose set out in the rules, articles of association, implementation rules, or project implementation plan for the project, and has already sold the land before the public announcement of transfer, the relevant land-developed by the development recompenses shall acquire ownership at the time following the date of the public announcement of transfer, and the purchaser of the relevant land-developed by the development recompenses

1. A. Article 48(3) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 8970, Mar. 21, 2008; hereinafter “former Act”) provides that “Where there is a remainder after receiving application for parcelling-out under Article 46, a project operator may designate it as a reserved land (including a building) or sell it to a person other than its members for the purpose set forth in its articles of incorporation or project implementation plan, etc.” Article 55(2) provides that “The reserved land and a site or a building to be sold to the general public shall be regarded as a reserved land or a land or a building to be sold to the general public under Article 33 of the Urban Development Act”. Accordingly, the legal principles on reserved land or a land or a building to be sold in lots under the Urban Development Act may be applied to the reserved land or a building site or a building to be sold to the general public without applying for parcelling-out or not

Meanwhile, Article 33 of the former Urban Development Act (amended by Act No. 8376 of Apr. 11, 2007; hereinafter “former Urban Development Act”) provides that “An implementer may appropriate a certain land for expenses incurred in an urban development project or for the purposes determined by the rules, articles of incorporation, implementation rules, or implementation plan as a substitute land and determine it as a land in recompense for development outlay or a reserved land without designating it as a substitute land.” Article 41(5) provides that “The implementer of the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay under the provisions of Article 33 shall acquire the ownership of the land as of the day following the date when the land substitution plan is publicly announced: Provided, That the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay for development outlay under the provisions of Article 35(4) shall be acquired at the time when the purchaser of the land allotted for development outlay for development outlay completes the registration of ownership transfer; the right to substitute land set in the previous replotting plan shall be deemed to be extinguished from the date following the date when the previous land substitution plan is announced; and its ownership shall be determined at the same time as the previous land substitution plan.”

B. According to Article 39(4) and (5) of the former Urban Development Act, an implementer shall, upon completion inspection conducted by a designating authority, notify a landowner of the matters prescribed in the land substitution plan and take a replotting disposition by publicly announcing the same, and the alteration of rights according to the contents prescribed in the land substitution plan through such land substitution disposition occurs. Meanwhile, according to Article 54(1) and (2) of the former Act, a project implementer shall notify a purchaser of the matters prescribed in the management and disposal plan at the time the completion of the construction and the completion of the construction are publicly announced in the official bulletin of the relevant local government. In light of the methods and effects of the land substitution disposition and the public announcement, the alteration of rights according to the management and disposal plan takes place. In light of such methods and effects of the land transfer disposition and the public announcement, the effectiveness of the land substitution disposition under the former Urban Development Act, which is applied mutatis mutandis under the relevant provisions of the former Urban Development Act, must be changed along with the effects and effects of the land transfer (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2

C. Examining these relevant provisions and legal principles, in a case where a housing redevelopment project implementer creates new land-owned recompense land, which is sold to persons other than the association members, in the management and disposal plan for the purpose of appropriating the expenses incurred in the project or the purpose set forth in the rules, articles of incorporation, implementation rules or project implementation plan, and has already sold it before the transfer announcement, the relevant land-developed by the development recompense land shall acquire ownership as of the day following the date of the public announcement of transfer by the project implementer

2. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record reveals the following facts.

A. On May 18, 1985, the Minister of Construction and Transportation, under the former Urban Redevelopment Act (repealed by Act No. 6852, Dec. 30, 2002; hereinafter the same), determined and publicly announced the Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (number 1 omitted) as a housing improvement redevelopment redevelopment redevelopment district (hereinafter “instant redevelopment project district”). The non-party association obtained the authorization of the implementation of the instant redevelopment project on December 3, 1986.

On August 24, 1991, the head of Seodaemun-gu authorized and publicly announced the management and disposal plan prepared by the non-party partnership, and authorized and publicly announced the revised management and disposal plan on December 29, 2005 (hereinafter “instant management and disposal plan”). After completion of the instant redevelopment project, the head of Seodaemun-gu announced the transfer of ownership of the site and building pursuant to Article 54 of the former Act on July 21, 2006 (hereinafter “instant transfer notification”). After closing the cadastral record, etc. of the pre-owned land within the redevelopment project zone of this case, the head of Seodaemun-gu announced the transfer of ownership of the site and building (hereinafter “instant transfer notification”). The cadastral record, etc. of the land was newly compiled after the management and disposal.

B. On January 16, 1987, during the execution of the instant redevelopment project, the non-party association agreed to transfer the site of the school emotional location operated by the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff owned by the Plaintiff. On February 1, 1988 and October 1992, the non-party association acquired the land of the school emotional location operated by the Plaintiff from the land of the instant redevelopment project, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the non-party association, by acquiring the land of the non-party association, as the ground for expropriation ruling or sale, the land of the non-party association (number 2 omitted), 113 square meters (number 3 omitted), 164 square meters for the railroad site (number 3 omitted), and 321 square meters for the railroad site (number 4 omitted) as at the time

On December 31, 1992, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff agreed to sell to the Plaintiff part of the previous three lots of land and the total area of 609 square meters in total, at the time of the completion of the redevelopment project, 54 square meters in Seodaemun-gu Seoul (number 5 omitted) (the sum of 4 lots of land totaling 397 square meters) in the railroad site 55 square meters, and the Plaintiff agreed to fully deliver the land entitled to a third party without any defects by cancelling the registration. On the other hand, the Plaintiff agreed to use each of the above land as the site for the school emotional expansion project. On April 28, 2005, the Plaintiff agreed to specify each of the above agreements with the Plaintiff on the completion of the redevelopment project and for the purpose of the school emotional expansion project operated by the Plaintiff, “the land to be sold to the Plaintiff with the land to be 609 square meters in total, including the previous three lots of land and the land to be sold to the Plaintiff as the land subject to a provisional disposition after the completion of the redevelopment project.”

On the following day, the non-party association issued to the Plaintiff a written consent for use confirming that the right to use the entire land subject to sale was the Plaintiff. The non-party association voluntarily adjusted the same content as the sales contract of this case on December 9, 2005 in the lawsuit filed by the Plaintiff for ownership transfer registration against the non-party association.

C. On the other hand, on November 23, 2004, the procedure for compulsory auction (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”) was initiated as Seoul Western District Court 2004Mota299 on nine parcels of land in the name of the non-party partnership within the redevelopment project district of this case, including the previous three parcels of land on November 23, 2004 at the request of the non-party creditor, etc. of the non-party partnership. The defendant (appointed party; hereinafter “the defendant”) purchased nine parcels of land at the instant auction procedure, and completely paid the sale price on August 10, 2006, which was after the date of the public notice of transfer of this case.

D. 1) Under the first management and disposal plan approved on August 24, 1991, the non-party union pointed out approximately 36,98.6m2 as one parcel the remainder, excluding 41,667m2 of public facilities and 609m2 (road expansion site) of the land to be sold to the Plaintiff among the 41,667m2 of the instant redevelopment project site, and the remaining 36,98m2 (road expansion site) of the land to be sold to the Plaintiff. The non-party union made a plan to sell the land to the co-ownership in accordance with the ratio of the size of the building facility for each parcel of land subject to parcelling-out. Such plan was maintained except where the use of the above 609m2 as of January 8, 199 was changed from the "road extension site to the

2) The management and disposal plan of this case, which was finally modified on December 29, 2005, contains the following contents:

① The cadastral point of the previous Seodaemun-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (Land Number 1 omitted) is 920 pieces of land (Land Number 7 omitted), and 23 parcels of the previous 920 pieces of land is maintained in the previous land, and the remaining 897 pieces of land are subdivided into “two parcels of land”, “one parcel of public facilities”, and “one parcel of land for other purposes”.

(2) Apartment houses, neighborhood living facilities, and sales facilities are newly constructed on two parcels corresponding to a housing site, and apartment houses are sold in lots to members, and neighborhood living facilities and sales facilities are supplied in general.

③ The portion of “one parcel of public facilities” is newly constructed and reverted to Seodaemun-gu without compensation, and the portion of “one parcel of other purposes” is newly constructed with a size of 609 square meters, and the same shall be transferred to the Plaintiff after the acquisition by the Nonparty Cooperative.

④ The registration of the instant decision to commence the auction on the previous three parcels of land, etc. is transferred to a sales facility among the buildings constructed on the housing site part.

3) Meanwhile, the instant management and disposal plan includes “written designation of the land scheduled for replotting.” The said written designation includes the previous three parcels of land in this case, including the previous three parcels of land, and where the instant land is independently or partially located as a land scheduled for replotting with regard to the previous parcel number nine parcels of the physical location of the instant land, two parcels of land in this case and the

E. The written public notice of the transfer of this case, prepared and publicly announced after the approval of the instant management and disposal plan, indicated that the Seoul Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (Road Number 8 omitted) school site 609 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) is indicated as “the Plaintiff” and the owner is indicated as “the specification of the newly established public facilities” in the said protocol. In the said protocol, the instant land is also transferred to the Plaintiff after the Nonparty Cooperative acquired it, and the registration of the instant decision on commencing the sale of the instant three lots of land is transferred to the sales facility created in the housing site.

F. On October 23, 2006, after the public notice of the transfer of this case, the non-party association registered the preservation of ownership on the land of this case, and completed the registration of ownership transfer to the plaintiff on the same day.

G. Since then, the Defendant asserted that the previous three parcels of land of this case were substituted by a part of the instant redevelopment project as the instant redevelopment project from among the land acquired at the auction procedure of this case to the junior administrative officer in charge of the request for the registration of the Seoul Western District Court, and applied for a request for the alteration of the ownership transfer registration under the name of

The lower court dismissed the Defendant’s objection on June 25, 2013. However, the appellate court revoked the first instance court’s decision on March 17, 2014 and decided to entrust the Defendant with the registration of ownership transfer of 323/609 shares out of the ownership of the non-party partnership and with the registration of change for the transfer of the Plaintiff’s ownership transfer of 286/609 shares. The above decision became final and conclusive at that time. The Defendant completed the entire registration of ownership transfer in its name with respect to the share transfer of 323/609 shares out of the instant land on March 28, 2014 in accordance with the above appellate court’s decision.

3. For the following reasons, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s claim seeking the full share transfer registration in the Defendant’s name, the full share transfer registration in the Defendant’s name, and the cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage on the instant land’s land, based on the ownership of the instant land.

A. Of the previous three parcels of land in this case, the total area of 323 square meters was replaced with the land in this case according to the relocation announcement of this case.

B. Since land secured by the authorities in recompense for development outlay is determined in advance in a land substitution plan or management and disposal plan and the ownership acquisition of the project implementer, etc. is determined only when a land substitution disposition is publicly announced or a sale disposition is publicly announced, acquisition of land secured by the authorities in recompense for development recompense, etc. cannot be made. In the instant management and disposal plan, the land of this case, including the land of this case, is not determined as a land secured by the authorities in recompense for development recompense, and rather, the project site including the land of this case, is divided into land for sale, road

C. Article 55(1) of the former Act does not require that a new land or a building substituted for the previous land or a building be sold to the association members as a result of the implementation of an urban improvement project, but also applies to a case where the owner of a new land or a building substituted for the previous land or a building is the partnership and the new building becomes a development recompense land or a reserved land (see Supreme Court Order 2013Ma325, May 6, 2013). Thus, as alleged by the Plaintiff, Article 55(1) of the former Act applies even if the instant land is a development recompense land or a reserved land reverted to the non-party partnership, and thus, the right based on the registration of the commencement order of the auction of the previous three lots of land of this case shall be deemed to have been transferred to 323/609 shares

4. However, examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the following determination is possible.

A. Since the land of this case was newly created by the management and disposal plan of this case and the transfer announcement, there is no concept of the previous land corresponding thereto, it cannot be deemed as the substitute land of the previous three lots of land. The land of this case cannot be deemed as the substitute land of this case. After the non-party association acquired the ownership originally on July 22, 2006 following the date the transfer announcement of this case was made, the registration of ownership was completed on October 23, 2006, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of the plaintiff on the same day, it shall be deemed that the plaintiff transferred the ownership by completing the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the plaintiff. In addition, the interpretation of the management and disposal plan of this case and the transfer announcement of this case cannot be deemed as the transfer of the right

B. The instant management disposition plan and the written public notice of transfer are not substituted for the ownership of the previous land, but for new ownership, to be created and supplied to the Plaintiff. The entry registration of the instant decision on commencing auction on the previous three parcels of land is deemed to have clearly indicated the intent of the Nonparty Union to transfer the instant land to a sales facility created in the housing site.

C. Since the former Urban Redevelopment Act and the former Urban Redevelopment Act divide the remainder after filing an application for parcelling-out into reserved land or general subdivisions, such legal effect as to the land of this case does not necessarily arise to be indicated as the term "land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay" in the management and disposal plan. Furthermore, since the land of this case was not created as a substitute for the previous land, it is not subject to Article 55(1) of the former Urban Redevelopment Act. Supreme Court Order 2013Ma325 Decided May 6, 2013 cited by the court below concerning the case where the owner of a new land or a building substituted for the previous land or a building is a partnership, it is inappropriate to apply the land of this case, the issue is different.

D. Of the instant management and disposal plan, the instant land is indicated in the designation of the land scheduled for substitution. However, the instant land is clearly indicated in the designation of the land scheduled for substitution. However, the said designation of the land scheduled for substitution is merely a disposition allowing landowners to temporarily use and profit from the previous land until the disposition of replotting is publicly announced, and if the disposition of replotting becomes effective after the public announcement of the disposition of replotting, the disposition of the land scheduled for substitution will lose its effect (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 99Du6873, Oct. 8, 199; 2017Du70946, Mar. 29, 2018). Since “The instant land is a newly established land secured for the recompense of development outlay, and its ownership belongs to the Plaintiff regardless of the previous three lots of land,” it cannot be deemed that part of the previous three previous lots of land in the designation of the land scheduled for substitution is substituted with the land.

E. The non-party association sold 609 square meters of land scheduled for the development recompense land in the future to be designated as the land of this case to the Plaintiff for the redevelopment project cost. However, the non-party association sold the previous three parcels of land, including the previous three parcels of land located in the physical location of the land of this case, and disposed of the designation of the land scheduled for substitution of land as the land of this case, which is the previous three parcels of land located in the physical location of the land of this case, thereby allowing the Plaintiff to sell the land of this case

5. Ultimately, the Defendant’s entire share transfer registration, and the entire share transfer registration, and the establishment registration, etc. registration, which was completed by the 323/609 shares out of the instant land on March 28, 2014, should be deemed null and void. Nevertheless, the lower court’s judgment that rejected the Plaintiff’s claim on the grounds that the Defendant’s entire share transfer registration is valid, has erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the validity of a management and disposition plan and a transfer notification under the former Act, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The grounds for appeal assigning this error

6. Therefore, 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.

[Attachment] List of Appointeds: Omitted

Justices Noh Jeong-hee (Presiding Justice)