기타(일반행정)
The judgment below
Of them, the part against the defendant against the plaintiff is ordered to be paid additionally and the defendant against the plaintiff B.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal
A. In light of the legislative purport of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (wholly amended by Act No. 14567, Feb. 8, 2017; hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), Article 78(5) and (9) 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 “Land Compensation Act”), Articles 54(2) and 55(2) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation therefor (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs No. 427, Jan. 2, 2012; hereinafter “Enforcement Rule of the Land Compensation Act”), compensation for relocating residential buildings to a residential building under the Urban Improvement Act is appropriate to determine the tenant’s relocation of the residential building without permission at the relevant improvement zone as at the time of the public announcement of the project plan.
(see Supreme Court Decision 2015Du46673, Oct. 26, 2017). In addition, a person entitled to compensation for directors’ expenses should be deemed to be a resident of a residential building incorporated into a zone where a public project is performed, who is relocating due to the implementation of a public project (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Du5332, Nov. 11, 2010). As can be seen, the obligation to pay relocation expenses and director’s expenses to a resident of a residential building relocated following the implementation of a public project shall arise immediately at the time of the public project announcement, etc. or the public announcement, etc. under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes for the public project.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Du7475 Decided April 26, 2012, see Supreme Court Decision 2010Du7475).