Attorney X-hwan et al.

Representative and higher than the President;

Law Firm Doz.

Y, Z.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

On March 23, 2007, the decision that the defendant of the Gu office's branch office excludes the plaintiff from the relocation countermeasure unit for the development project of the Daegu District (Industrial Complex Development).

The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the following facts: there is no dispute between the parties; there is evidence of No. 1 to 3; evidence No. 5-1; and evidence No. 8-1.

A. As the owner of the land of Gangseo-gu, Busan Metropolitan City, the Plaintiff newly constructed a 1st floor sculpture building for the use of mushroom cultivation plant on the above land (hereinafter “instant building”) and obtained approval for the use on April 8, 2002.

B. On October 30, 2003, the Defendant was designated as the Busan High Sea Free Economic Zone under the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 2003-20 on October 30, 2003, and the development plan was amended under the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 2004-14 on September 2, 2004. After December 30, 2005, the operator of the chemical zone (industrial complex creation) development project for which the implementation plan was approved under the Busan Metropolitan City Public Notice No. 2005-27 on December 30, 2005, the Defendant announced the compensation plan following the implementation of the project in this case under the Busan Urban Corporation Notice No. 2005-37 on July 1, 2005, and on October 25, 2006, the date of the designation of the Busan High Free Economic Zone and announced the relocation development project of the chemical zone (industrial complex development project) as the base date for livelihood countermeasures.

A person shall be appointed.

C. When the instant building was incorporated into the said project district, on March 20, 2007, the Plaintiff filed an application for the selection of the Defendant as the subject of the relocation measures, asserting that it constitutes the criteria for selection of the said subjects of the relocation measures. Accordingly, the Defendant excluded the Plaintiff from the subject of the relocation measures on the ground that the Plaintiff falls under the “owner of a building constructed without obtaining permission or filing a report, which is excluded from the subject of the relocation measures pursuant to Article 40(3)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation therefor (hereinafter “the Public Works Act”). < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 20190, Mar. 23, 2007>

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The parties' assertion

The defendant argues that the disposition of this case is legitimate in light of the Public Works Act and the Enforcement Decree thereof, since the building of this case constitutes a building without permission or report, and that the plaintiff is the owner of the same land as the plaintiff's land of Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan City signal 1 and the adjacent land of the same Dong 2.

In light of the purport of the relocation measures system under the Public Works Act to guarantee a living worthy of human beings, it is reasonable to view that the owner of a building constructed lawfully by obtaining permission from the Plaintiff as the owner of a building with the same purpose of residence is a person subject to relocation measures, even if there was no permission or report for changing the purpose of use for residence as the owner of the building constructed for the purpose of residence for restaurant purpose, and the building newly constructed for the purpose of use for the purpose of mushroom cultivation was changed to a house and had been living in the building of this case from the above base date before the above base date. Thus, the building of this case was merely changed to use a building for the purpose of mushroom cultivation as a house, not a building without permission or report, but a building for the purpose of use for a lawful purpose of use for a forest, and at the same time, the building of this case was changed to use without permission or report without permission, and thus, it is unlawful in view of the purport of the relocation measures system under the Act to guarantee a living worthy of human beings.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

However, the Public Works Act provides a project operator with a duty to establish relocation measures for those who lose their base of livelihood as a result of the implementation of a public project (Article 78(1)), but excludes the owners of buildings constructed without obtaining permission or filing a report under the Enforcement Decree (hereinafter referred to as “unauthorized, without permission”) from a person subject to relocation measures (Article 40(3)1). At the same time, the Enforcement Rule excludes the owners of buildings without permission as above from the subject of relocation expenses, compensation for residential buildings, and compensation for residential buildings. In full view of these provisions, the Plaintiff is not entitled to relocation measures, and the Plaintiff’s owner of buildings constructed without permission or filing a report required by the Act, and the purpose of this case’s construction without permission is to exclude them from the subject of relocation measures without permission or filing a report under the Act, and thus, the Plaintiff’s use without permission or filing a report under the Act without permission is deemed to be the subject of construction without permission or filing a report under the Act, and thus, the Plaintiff’s use without permission or filing a report under the Act.

Therefore, the disposition of this case, excluding the plaintiff from the person subject to the relocation measures, is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Park Jong-sung

Judges Park Gin-uri