According to the reasoning of the original judgment, the lower court recognized the instant real estate owned by the Plaintiff as part of a road constructed by an urban planning project under the Urban Planning Act pursuant to Article 10 of the Road Act and Article 9 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Road Act prior to the amendment, pursuant to Article 10 of the Road Act and Article 9 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

However, in order to apply mutatis mutandis the provision of the Road Act to a road constructed as an urban planning project under Article 9 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Road Act before the amendment, the provision of the Road Act shall be applied mutatis mutandis under Article 10 of the Road Act. In this regard, it shall be reasonable to regard it as requiring not only the public notice under Article 7 of the former Urban Planning Act but also the public notice under Article 12 of the same Act and the mutatis mutandis public notice under Article 9 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Road Act (see Supreme Court Decision 64Da577 delivered on December 22, 64, 200). In this case, the public notice of the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City cited by the original judgment under Article 9 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Road Act (No. 2) is merely the public notice of the Minister of Construction and Transportation under Article 7 of the former Urban Planning Act (the public notice by the Minister of Construction and Transportation shall be the one publicly notified by the Minister of Construction and Transportation with the delegation of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation).

Therefore, the appeal on this point is justified, and the judgment of the court below is reversed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices for a new trial and determination.

Justices Yang Byung-ho (Presiding Justice)