Seoul Central District

Gangnam-gu Seoul

Representative ○○ ○

Law Firm Tae-il, Counsel for defendant-appellant

Attorney Kim Sung-won

On June 7, 2007, the defendant revoked a non-conformity decision-making measure against the plaintiff on June 7, 2007.

All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

A. On October 23, 2002, the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City announced the project implementer as the defendant (the title at the time is "the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Urban Development Corporation") to promote the Eunpyeong New Town Development Project under the Urban Development Act (hereinafter "the project in this case") with respect to the 3,593,00 meters from among the development-restricted areas in the Jin-gu and dong in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, and the development-restricted areas in the Guro-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-gu. On November 25, 2002, the project implementer announced as

2. Under Article 8 of the Act No. 6656, Jan. 1, 2003, hereinafter referred to as the "Public Special Act"), the base date for the relocation measures of the project of this case was publicly announced on Nov. 20, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the "base date for the relocation measures of this case").

B. Pursuant to Article 22 (4) of the former National Land Planning and Utilization Act (amended by Act No. 8852 of Feb. 29, 2008), the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City publicly announced pursuant to Article 22 (4) of the former National Land Planning and Utilization Act (amended by Act No. 8852 of Feb. 29, 2008), publicly announced an urban development project plan to allow residents to peruse in order to hear their opinions with respect to the project of this case by Act No. 2004-25, Feb. 25, 2004.

11. Pursuant to Articles 3, 4, and 9(1) of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Notice No. 2004 - 58 of the said lot of land, the project area is about 3,495, 248 meters of the above lot of land, and the approval of the designation and development plan of the Eunpyeong New Town Urban Development Zone, the project implementer of which the defendant is the defendant, was publicly announced.

C. On October 19, 2004, the Defendant: (a) Article 78(1) of the former Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works (amended by Act No. 8665 of Oct. 17, 2007; hereinafter “Public Works Act”); (b) Enforcement Decree of the former Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works (amended by Act No. 8665 of Oct. 17, 2007)

24 Pursuant to Article 40(3)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Works Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19409, hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Decree of the Public Works Act"), the following contents (hereinafter referred to as the "the relocation criteria of this case") were publicly announced "the relocation measures guidelines for Pyeongtaek New Town Urban Development Zones".

o The base date for relocation measures: On November 20, 2002, the Plaintiff purchased the housing area on May 1, 2003 from Ma○○ on the ground of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on June 3, 2003, and resided in the above housing area after completing the registration of ownership transfer under its name, and voluntarily relocated on November 19, 2004 in response to the Defendant’s compensation agreement.

Meanwhile, on June 1, 1989, the Plaintiff’s husband ○○ purchases a detached house with the distance of the ground floor, the distance of the first floor, the distance of the second floor, and the second floor, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on June 10, 1989. On March 31, 2003, the Plaintiff’s husband ○○ sells it to Park○○, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of Park○ on April 28, 2003.

E. On June 7, 2007, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff did not become a homeless person under the criteria for the relocation measures of this case (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5, 6, 7, 15, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 12, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. In light of the Plaintiff’s assertion (1) Article 78(1) of the Public Works Act, Article 40(3)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Works Act, Constitutional Court Decision 2004Hun-Ma62 of the Constitutional Court, and the authoritative interpretation of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation, “the date of the public notice, etc. under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes” under Article 40(3)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Works Act shall be deemed to be the date of public notice for inspection or district designation under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes. The Plaintiff, the date of public notice for inspection or district designation

15. From June 9, 2003, which was before February 25, 2004, the date of the public notice of designation of the zone, the housing located in the instant project zone. The defendant, although the public notice of the base date of the relocation measures of this case was made pursuant to Article 8 of the Public Special Act, Article 8 of the Public Special Act only stipulates that the relocation measures should be established, it cannot be the ground provision that the public notice of the base date of the relocation measures should be made.

(2) The base date for the relocation measures of this case is: (a) the public announcement is made before the commencement of the project in this case and is null and void by the Defendant, who is not the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor, and (b) the criteria for the relocation measures are not established; and (c) the provision of Article 19(3) of the Rules on Housing Supply is null and void after the establishment of the criteria for the relocation measures. (c) In the event a development restriction zone is cancelled under the Housing Site Development Promotion Act or under the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones for the implementation of an urban development project in accordance with the Urban Development Act, and where a public project is implemented, a project operator who constructs a housing site or land created by the relevant public project and constructs a housing after being supplied with the housing site or land built by the relevant public project shall be a homeless

Article 5(1) of the Regulations on Special Supply of National Housing for the Withdrawners, etc. of Seoul Special Metropolitan City provides that "persons eligible for special supply of national housing, etc. shall be those who do not own any other house as of the date of application for special supply, or those who fall under the owner of a building to be removed from the date of authorization to implement the project until the date of compensation before the date of public announcement of authorization to implement the project is given." Thus, in light of the purport of these provisions, the defendant must supply a apartment unit of not more than 85§³ to the

(4) When the Defendant publicly announced the base date for the relocation measures of the project in this case, it is against the principle of equity to maintain the base date for the relocation measures of the project in this case and to demand that the project in this case should be homeless prior to the base date for the relocation measures of the project in other areas, not in compliance with this standard, but in the development project in the roadside and king area. Although the project in this case had no speculation, the base date for the relocation measures of each district was designated as the base date for the public inspection or the date of the announcement of the designation of the district without separately publicly announced the base date for the relocation measures, and even if it was not asked whether the project in this case is owned by houses outside the project area, it is against the principle of equity in comparison with the case of other areas.

(5) Article 22 (1) of the Public Works Act provides that "When the Minister of Construction and Transportation grants a project approval under Article 20, he/she shall notify the project operator, landowner and person concerned, related Si/Do Governor of the purport without delay, and publicly notify the project operator's name or name, type of project, project area, and details of land to be expropriated or used in the Official Gazette." Article 40 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Works Act provides that "When the project operator intends to establish measures for relocation under Article 78 (1) of the Act, he/she shall notify the person subject to measures for relocation under Article 78 (1) of the Act, he/she shall be subject to measures for relocation under the same paragraph." Thus, the defendant shall notify the

(b) Related statutes;

As shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

Article 78 (1) of the Public Works Act and Article 40 (3) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Works Act.

As seen earlier, Article 78(1) of the Public Works Act delegates to the Presidential Decree the establishment and implementation of the relocation measures for those subject to the relocation measures, and according to the delegation, Article 40(3)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Works Act provides that those who have acquired the ownership of a building and have resided thereafter shall be excluded from those subject to the relocation measures. "The date a public announcement is made in accordance with the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes under Article 40(3)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Works Act" refers to the basic date for the relocation measures, i.e., the basic date for the selection of those subject to the relocation measures, i. the basic date for the selection of those subject to the relocation measures (see Constitutional Court Order 2004Hun-Ma62, May 26, 2005). Accordingly, in order to become the basic date for the relocation measures which are the basic date for the determination of those subject to the relocation measures, the public announcement should be made under Article 40(3)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Works Act.

former National Land Planning and Utilization Act (amended by Act No. 8852 of Feb. 29, 2008)

On January 15, 2004, the date of public inspection and announcement under Article 2(4), and the date of designation of an urban development zone under Articles 3, 4, and 9(1) of the former Urban Development Act (amended by Act No. 8376 of Apr. 11, 2007), which is the date of designation of an urban development zone under Article 3, 4, and 9(1), which is the date of designation of an urban development zone under Article 40(3)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Works Act, is questionable.

The following is about whether the date of the relocation measures of this case ( November 20, 2002) falls under the "date of public notice, etc. under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes" under Article 40 (3) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Works Act.

The former Urban Development Act, which was enforced at the time of November 25, 2002, when the base date for the relocation measures of this case was publicly announced (202.

2. Article 23 of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Special Act (amended by Act No. 6656 of Jan. 1, 2003, which was enforced as of Jan. 1, 2003) provides that "the implementer shall establish and implement relocation measures for those who lose their base of livelihood by providing land, etc. necessary for the implementation of an urban development project as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Acquisition of Land for Public Use and the Compensation for Loss," and Article 8 of the Special Act, Article 5 (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Special Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17854, Jan. 1, 2003; 201. 3. 4. 5. 5. 5. 5. 5. 5. 5. 5. 5. 5. 5. 5. 5. 6 of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Special Act provides that the implementer is not entitled to the relocation measures or the person subject to the relocation measures under Article 27-2 (3) of the former Enforcement Rule.

Therefore, the base date for the relocation measures of this case, which was announced by the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor and the defendant on November 25, 2002 under Article 8 of the Special Act, is based on a provision that cannot be the basis for the public announcement and notification of the base date for the relocation measures separately, and thus, cannot be deemed as falling under the "date the public notification, etc. under Article 40 (3) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Works Act". Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the determination of whether the project is included in the person subject to the relocation measures of this case based on the base date for the relocation measures of this case is unlawful in violation

As long as the Plaintiff was excluded from a person subject to the relocation measures of the instant project based on the base date for the relocation measures of the instant case, the instant disposition that needs to be examined further should be revoked as it is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be accepted.

Inasmuch as the conclusion differs and is unfair, it is revoked and it is so decided as per Disposition with the Plaintiff’s claim accepted.

Judges Anti-competence

Judge Conditions Governing Notes