1. According to Articles 54(1) and (2) and 55(1) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), a project implementer who implements a housing redevelopment project shall, when the approval of completion and the completion of construction are publicly notified, notify the purchaser of the matters determined by the management and disposal plan without delay through a site confirmation survey and division procedure of land, and transfer the ownership of the site or building to the head of the relevant Si/Gun after public announcement in the official report of the relevant local government. In such cases, the purchaser of the site or building acquires the ownership of the site or building on the date following the public announcement date. In such cases, the right established in the previous land or building and the right to lease meeting the requirements under Article 3(1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act are deemed to have been established in the site or building to which the ownership was transferred. The ownership of the site or building becomes final and conclusive on the basis of new legal relations, and the ownership of the association members, etc. shall be newly formed and publicly announced by 20130 or 200%.

Considering the public interest and collective nature of the improvement project as above and the need to protect legal stability by maintaining the legal relationship already formed in accordance with the public notice of transfer, it is reasonable to interpret that there is no legal interest in seeking confirmation of invalidity of the adjudication of expropriation made for the relevant improvement project, in principle, after the public notice of transfer takes effect.

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the records, ① the Plaintiff (appointed parties) and the designated parties (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Plaintiffs”) are the owners of land, etc. in the instant project zone, which is a housing redevelopment project under the Urban Improvement Act, and the Intervenor’s Intervenor is the Housing Redevelopment Project Association approved by the head of Busan Metropolitan City on March 2, 2005. ② The Plaintiffs did not apply for parcelling-out or withdraw the application for parcelling-out to the Intervenor within the period for parcelling-out specified in the project implementation plan. ③ The Intervenor’s Intervenor filed an application for expropriation of the real estate subject to the adjudication of expropriation on April 13, 2009, and the Defendant rendered a ruling of expropriation on April 13, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as “instant acceptance ruling”). ④ On May 20, 2015, after the instant appeal was filed, the Intervenor’s Intervenor transferred the instant project and became effective.

3. Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, since the Defendant’s Intervenor’s Intervenor, after the instant confinement ruling, made a public announcement of the transfer of the instant project and became effective, the Plaintiffs are no longer interested in the law seeking nullification of the instant expropriation ruling.

Therefore, all of the lawsuits of this case shall be dismissed, and the judgment of the court below which judged on the merits shall not be maintained and reversed.

4. Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed. Since this court is sufficient to directly decide on the grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and all of the lawsuit of this case is dismissed. Of the total costs of the lawsuit, the part pertaining to the participation of the Plaintiff’s Intervenor is borne by the Plaintiff’s Intervenor, and the remainder is borne by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party).

[Attachment] List of Appointeds: Omitted

Justices Kim So-young (Presiding Justice)