[주거이전비및이사비지급청구][공2006.6.1.(251),926]
Housing relocation expenses and the legal nature of relocation expenses paid to the tenants of residential buildings relocated due to the implementation of public works, and the time of acquisition of such claim and the amount paid for relocation expenses.
According to Article 78(5) of the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation therefor, and Articles 54(2) and 55(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, housing relocation expenses and directors' expenses paid to tenants of residential buildings relocated following the implementation of public works shall have the nature of funds paid from the social security level for tenants who will suffer special difficulties due to the policy purpose of encouraging early relocation of tenants residing in the relevant public works implementation zone to facilitate the implementation of the project by encouraging early relocation of tenants, and relocation of their residence. Therefore, the tenant who falls under the tenant of residential buildings relocated from the implementation zone of public works at the time of the public works project approval or the public works under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, who resided in the relevant public works implementation zone for more than three months at the time of the public works project approval, etc. shall be deemed to have the right to claim relocation expenses and relocation expenses under Article 54(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act and Article 54(2) of the same Enforcement Rule [Article 54(2) of the same Act].
Article 78(5) of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects; Articles 54(2) and 55(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects
Haunnam
The Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (Seoul General Law Firm, Attorney Presiding over)
Seoul High Court Decision 2005Nu6982 delivered on December 27, 2005
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
Article 78(5) of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (hereinafter “the Act”) and Articles 54(2) and 55(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act (hereinafter “Rules”) provide for the tenants of residential buildings who move to a public project following the implementation of the public project in accordance with Article 78(2) and 55(2) have the nature of the amount of money to be paid from the perspective of social security for the policy purpose of encouraging early relocation of tenants residing in the zone where the public project is implemented to facilitate the implementation of the project and for the tenants who suffer special difficulties due to the relocation of their residence. Thus, Article 54(2) of the Rules provides that the tenants of residential buildings who move to a public project at the time of the public project announcement or the public project announcement under the relevant Act and subordinate statutes for the public project shall be deemed to have resided within the zone where the public project is implemented and the amount of money to be paid to the tenants shall not be considered to have been paid until the date of notification or expropriation of the relocation expenses.
The court below, after compiling the adopted evidence, found the facts as stated in the judgment, and determined that even if the plaintiff had resided for more than three months at the time of November 30, 202, which was the date when the public notice was given as to the implementation plan for the project for the project for the creation of a green belt for the astronomical Winter Facilities in this case, the plaintiff acquired the right to claim the cost of moving a house and the cost of moving a house under Article 78(5) of the Act and Articles 54(2) and 55(2) of the Rules, and thereafter, the defendant's right to claim the cost of moving a house and the cost of moving a house shall not be extinguished even if the part of the building that occurred due to a fire and the right to claim the cost of moving a house is relocated to outside the implementation district of the public works project. In light of the above legal principles, the judgment of the court below is correct, and there is no violation of law as to the legal principles as to the cost
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.
Justices Kim Ji-hyung (Presiding Justice)