Article 38 of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 9444 of Feb. 6, 2009; hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) provides that “If it is necessary for implementing a rearrangement project within an improvement zone (in cases of a housing reconstruction project, limited to cases where natural disasters or other unavoidable causes exist) the project implementer may expropriate or use land, things or other rights under Article 3 of the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation therefor,” and the main sentence of Article 40(1) provides that “The Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation therefor shall apply mutatis mutandis to the expropriation or use of the ownership and other rights of the land or buildings for the implementation of a rearrangement project within a rearrangement zone, except as otherwise provided for in this Act.”

In addition, Article 78(5) of the former Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation therefor (amended by Act No. 11017, Aug. 4, 201; hereinafter “Public Works Act”) provides that “A resident of a residential building shall pay compensation for expenses incurred in moving his/her residence and expenses incurred in transporting movable property, such as household effects, to the resident of the residential building.” Accordingly, the main text of Article 54(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Works Act provides that “the owner of a residential building to be incorporated in a zone where the public works are performed shall compensate for relocation expenses for two months according to the number of household members when compensating the owner of the building in question.” Article 55(2) provides that “where a resident of a residential building to be incorporated in a zone where the public works are performed is to be a director outside the zone where the public works are performed, the relocation expenses of the building in question and the owner of the building in the zone where the public works are performed shall be compensated for.”

However, according to Article 47 of the Urban Improvement Act, Article 48 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Articles 38 and 40 (1) of the same Act, a project implementer for a housing redevelopment project shall liquidate land, buildings or other rights in cash within 150 days from the date he/she becomes a person subject to a cash liquidation due to failure to apply for parcelling-out among the owners of land, etc. or withdrawal of application for parcelling-out, etc. among the owners of land, etc., and shall calculate the liquidation amount by consultation with the person subject to cash liquidation, and if the consultation fails to reach an agreement, the expropriation procedure under the Public Works Act shall be implemented.

In full view of these legal provisions, it is reasonable to view that in a housing redevelopment project under the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas, a person subject to the settlement of cash, who is the owner of a residential building, has agreed on the settlement of cash and transferred ownership of a residential building to the project implementer or who has been accommodated in a residential building under the Public Works Act due to the failure to reach an agreement on the settlement of cash,

In the same purport, the decision of the court below is just in holding that the parties who transferred the ownership of the building due to a consultation on cash settlement among the plaintiffs and the persons who expropriated the building by the defendant who is the project implementer due to the failure to reach an agreement on cash settlement shall be subject to the payment of housing relocation expenses and directors' expenses under the Public Works Act, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the housing relocation expenses

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 Park Poe-dae (Presiding Justice)