2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

A. On December 12, 2008, the former week Mayor (hereinafter “the instant project”) established and publicly announced a plan for designating and developing the former chronic urban development zone (hereinafter “instant plan”) with the total area of 1,375,200 square meters among the chronic Dong-dong land in the previous week as a project zone under Article 208-108 of the previous week’s notification at the previous week.

B. On the other hand, on July 2, 2008, the former mayor and the Defendant announced the date of the relocation measures relating to the instant project as of July 2, 2008. After that, on November 23, 2012, the Defendant and the president of the former North Korea Development Corporation publicly announced the relocation measures and the livelihood compensation plan for the residents who lose their base of livelihood, etc. due to the implementation of the instant project, as of November 23, 2012, the Defendant and the president of the former North Korea Development Corporation publicly announced the relocation measures and the livelihood compensation plan for the residents who lose their base of livelihood due to the implementation of the instant project (hereinafter “instant relocation measures”) as follows.

< The relocation measures of this case>

1) Supply of resettled housing sites;

The amount obtained by subtracting the basic living facilities (road treatment facilities, water supply facilities, sewage facilities, installation expenses, gas facilities) under Article 41-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects under Article 41-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (including road, water supply facilities, water supply facilities, sewage facilities, gas facilities, gas facilities facilities) from the appraisal of the supply price of not more than 330§³ of the residential site of the instant development zone subject to the classification included in the main sentence, who owned the house within the relevant project district from the date of public inspection or the date of expropriation of the designation of the development zone of this case ( July 2, 2008) and who has continued to reside in the relevant project district before the date of public inspection, who received compensation for the house from the defendant and moves to the implementation of the project after January 25, 1989.

(ii) the supply of migrantss' houses;

The actual contents of the list classification in the main sentence are those owned and resided in the project district from before the date of public announcement of the designation of the development zone in this case ( July 2, 2008) to the date of the conclusion of the compensation contract or the date of expropriation, and they move to due to the implementation of the project after receiving compensation for the house from our construction. The actual contents of the real estate are the amount calculated by deducting the basic living facilities (road, water supply and sewage treatment facilities, electric facilities, communications facilities, gas facilities, and gas facilities installation costs) under Article 41-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (the exclusive use area of which is below 85 square meters) supplied by the non-permission owner after January 25, 1989 from the general sale price of public housing to the size of national housing supplied by the defendant (the exclusive use area is below 85 square meters).

C. The Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for the selection of himself/herself as a person subject to relocation measures, alleging that he/she had been continuously residing in the instant house since before the date of relocation measures, as the owner of the housing (hereinafter “instant housing”) that is an unauthorized building on the ground of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Seoul Special Metropolitan City ( Address omitted) (hereinafter “instant land”). On August 29, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disposition to exclude the Plaintiff from the person subject to relocation measures on the ground that the instant housing constitutes an unauthorized house newly constructed after January 25, 1989 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The Defendant applied for adjudication on expropriation of the instant housing, etc. to the Central Land Expropriation Committee on the ground that the Plaintiff did not reach an agreement on compensation. On October 23, 2014, the Central Land Expropriation Committee rendered adjudication on expropriation of the instant housing, etc. as KRW 43,88,650, and the Defendant deposited the said amount on December 15, 2014.

E. On October 17, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the Defendant seeking revocation of the instant disposition with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal on April 21, 2015, and the said ruling was served on the Plaintiff on May 2, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant house is merely identical to the previous house, which was constructed before January 24, 1989 (hereinafter “previous house”). The Plaintiff owned the instant house from February 1, 1986 to October 23, 2014, which was before the date of public announcement of the designation of the instant project ( October 30, 2003), and continued to reside in the said house. Therefore, even though the Defendant should select the Plaintiff as a person subject to relocation measures, the instant disposition was unlawful since the Defendant decided to exclude the instant house from the person subject to relocation measures on the premise that it constitutes an unauthorized house newly constructed after January 25, 1989.

B. Determination

1) Under Article 23 of the former Urban Development Act (amended by Act No. 8376 of Apr. 11, 2007), Article 78(1) of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (hereinafter “Public Works Act”), a project operator shall establish and implement relocation measures or pay resettlement funds as prescribed by the Enforcement Decree of the Public Works Act for persons who are deprived of their base of livelihood due to the provision of residential buildings due to the implementation of an urban development project (hereinafter “persons subject to relocation measures”). Article 40(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Works Act provides that the owner of an unauthorized building shall, in principle, be excluded from those subject to relocation measures. It is allowed for a project operator to establish and implement the criteria for expanding the scope of those subject to relocation measures as prescribed by the above Act. With regard to the establishment and implementation of such criteria, the relocation measures, etc. shall not violate equity in mind with the fact that the migrants’s living condition is restored to their original state and at the same time ensuring their living worthy (see Supreme Court Decision 209Du9494, Sept. 29, 29, 20094).

2) 살피건대, 을 제1, 2호증(가지번호 있는 것은 각 가지번호 포함, 이하 같다)의 각 기재 및 영상에 의하면, 1987. 4.경 촬영된 항공사진상 이 사건 토지상에 종전 주택이 존재하였던 것으로 확인되고, 종전 주택의 지붕은 ‘ㅡ’자 모양의 슬레이트 구조로 되어 있는 사실, 그 후 2009년경 촬영된 항공사진상 이 사건 토지상에 이 사건 주택이 존재하는 것으로 확인되고, 이 사건 주택의 지붕은 ‘ㄱ’자 모양의 블록 조립식 판넬 슬레이트 구조로 되어 있는 사실은 인정된다.

However, comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned evidence, Gap's evidence and evidence Nos. 5 through 15 and the purport of the entire pleadings, ① the Jeonju Mayor and the defendant set the date of relocation measures related to the business of this case on July 2, 2008 and announced it as July 2, 2008. ② The defendant and the president of the Jeonbukbuk Development Corporation announced the relocation measures and living plan for the residents who lose their living base due to the implementation of the business of this case on November 23, 2012. According to the standard, "the owner of the housing without permission" was the owner of the housing constructed before Jan. 24, 1989 as the 19th day ( July 2, 2008) to the 19th day of the death of the plaintiff, who had been residing in the housing district before the date of the conclusion of compensation contract or the adjudication on expropriation, and supplied the housing to the non-party 1, who had been located in the housing of this case on July 24, 2008.

3) Based on the legal principles as seen earlier, the following circumstances revealed by comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned facts and the purport of the entire arguments, namely, ① the Plaintiff’s owner of the instant house from around 1986 to June 2015, and resided as a basis for living without cutting down the previous house and the instant house, which partially extended the previous house, from around 1986 to June 2015; ② In light of the developments leading up to the extension of the instant house, it is not deemed that the Plaintiff had the intent to refer to the Plaintiff’s status as a person subject to real estate speculation or relocation measures; ③ Despite the fact, the Plaintiff’s physical structure of the instant house is not identical, and so long, the instant house is excluded from the Plaintiff’s person subject to relocation measures for the reason that it was merely a formal point of view and logic that “after January 25, 1989, the Plaintiff had been residing in the project district from before and after the date of the implementation of the relocation measures system under the Public Works Act, and thus, it is reasonable to deem the Plaintiff’s person as the Plaintiff’s owner without permission.

4) Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition of this case, other than the Plaintiff, is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition.

Judges Park Chang-hee (Presiding Judge)