Attorney Kim Jong-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Law Firm Rowon, Attorneys Go Jae-ia et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellant

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. Relevant legal principles

A. Article 47 of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 11293, Feb. 1, 2012; hereinafter referred to as the “former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents”) provides that even if the owner of land, etc. fails to apply for parcelling-out within the period of application for parcelling-out or withdraws it within the period of application for parcelling-out after filing an application for parcelling-out within the period of application for parcelling-out, it shall be liquidated in cash for land, buildings or other rights within 150 days if it is excluded from the object of parcelling-out under an authorized management and disposal plan after filing an application for parcelling-out. Meanwhile, Article 47 of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 11293, Feb. 1, 2012; Article 47(2)); and Article 47 of the above Act applied to the first association establishment authorization after August 2, 201 (Article 8).

B. In cases where the former Urban Improvement Act applies by applying for authorization to establish an association on or before August 2, 2012, where the owner of a plot of land, etc. continues to possess his/her land or building (hereinafter “land, etc.”) without delivering it during the period of maintaining the status of association members, and became subject to cash liquidation by failing to apply for parcelling-out, etc., and only after receiving cash settlement money determined by the compensation consultation or the decision of expropriation, the association has delivered possession of land, etc. to the relevant owner of a plot of land, etc., even though the period of implementation of 150 days from the date when the actual payment of cash settlement money was made to the relevant owner of a plot of land, etc., the association is not liable for delay due to delay in the payment of cash settlement money for the number of delayed days exceeding the period of implementation of 150 days (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2018Du4762

2. Determination as to the instant case

A. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record reveals the following circumstances.

1) The defendant was established for the purpose of implementing the housing redevelopment project by designating ○○ Dong-dong Seoul Special Metropolitan City Nowon-gu △△△△ as the rearrangement project zone, and around June 2009, the housing redevelopment project partnership approved by the head of Nowon-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

2) Article 44(4) and (8) of the Defendant’s articles of incorporation (hereinafter referred to as “instant articles of incorporation”) of the Defendant stipulates that in cases where a partner is a person who has failed to apply for parcelling-out or a person who has withdrawn the application for parcelling-out before the expiration of the period for application for parcelling-out, the land, buildings or other rights shall be liquidated in cash within 150 days from the date following the expiration of the period for application for parcelling-out under Article 46(1) of the former Act, but in cases where the payment has not been made in cash within

3) Although the Plaintiff owned land, etc. within the Defendant’s rearrangement project zone, the Plaintiff did not file an application for parcelling-out within the period for application for parcelling-out (from January 15, 2015 to March 22, 2015) and became a person subject to cash settlement on March 23, 2015.

4) On June 23, 2017, the Defendant filed an application with the Plaintiff for a ruling of expropriation, and on June 23, 2017, the competent local Land Tribunal rendered a ruling of expropriation with the content that the Defendant expropriates land, etc. owned by the Plaintiff and pays certain compensation for losses.

5) During the instant pleadings, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff did not provide documents for ownership transfer registration and provide performance of the obligation to deliver the land, etc. until the Defendant deposited compensation for losses pursuant to the adjudication of expropriation. The Plaintiff did not challenge this.

B. In this case, the Plaintiff continued to occupy and use his own land, etc. even after becoming an object of cash settlement because it did not apply for the application for parcelling-out within the period for parcelling-out, and the Defendant appears to have delivered the above land, etc. to the Defendant after depositing the compensation for expropriation on August 11, 2017. Therefore, even if the Defendant paid the Plaintiff cash settlement money after the expiration of the implementation period of 150 days from the date on which the ground for cash settlement occurred, the Defendant is not liable for delay. The lower court’s partial determination is inappropriate, but the conclusion that the Plaintiff dismissed the Plaintiff’s instant claim is justifiable. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the interpretation and application of Articles 40(1) and 47 of the former Act, the principle of statutory interpretation, the principle of statutory reservation, and the interpretation and application of the

3. Conclusion

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

Justices Kim Jae-in

Justices Min Il-young in charge

Justices Lee Jae-hwan