[행정처분취소][집30(1)특,90;공1982.5.15.(680),439]
The status of an urban redevelopment project implementer and the validity of re-development project implementer's change of ownership based on a contract for transfer of rights under private law
Since the status of an urban redevelopment project operator is the content of rights and obligations under public law, it cannot be subject to transfer under private law. Therefore, the registration for change of the name of the developer of the Urban Redevelopment Project Act based on the contract for transfer of rights under private law is the invalid disposition without any legal basis.
Articles 7 and 12 of the Urban Redevelopment Act, Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act
Park Jong-un, Attorney Park Jong-soo et al.
Busan City Mayor (Attorney Han Han-dae, Counsel for defendant-appellant)
Daegu High Court Decision 81 Gu1 delivered on September 8, 1981
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the defendant approved the implementation of the redevelopment project under the provisions of Article 12 (1) of the Urban Redevelopment Act of January 30, 1979, but submitted the contract for the transfer of the rights to the non-party Y and the application for the change of the name of the developer to the non-party 10 July 10, 1980. The status of the developer of the redevelopment project can not be subject to transfer under the private law since the status of the developer can not be subject to transfer under the private law because it is the content of the rights under the private law, and the defendant's disposal of the building is not a new type of change of the developer's rights under the private law, and it does not constitute a legitimate disposition for the change of the name of the developer under the contract for the transfer of rights, and therefore, it cannot be viewed that there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the disposition for the change of the building permit under the private law and the approval of the non-party's change of ownership under the Urban Redevelopment Act.
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 judges.
Justices Jeong Jong-tae (Presiding Justice) Kim Jong-young (Presiding Justice)