Whether a project for the purpose of only creating a site for the distribution business facility can be recognized as an urban planning project under the former Urban Planning Act (affirmative)

Article 2(1)1 of the former Urban Planning Act (amended by Act No. 6243 of Jan. 28, 2000) (see current Article 2 subparag. 2 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act) and Article 2(1)3 (see current Article 2 subparag. 7 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act)

Plaintiff (Law Firm Kangsan, Attorneys Kim Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Law Firm Yangyang, Attorneys Park Byung-hee et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2008Na84757 decided April 8, 2009

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 2 (1) 3 of the former Urban Planning Act (amended by Act No. 6243 of Jan. 28, 200) provides that "urban planning facilities" mean facilities installed according to the plans under subparagraph 1 (b) and (c) determined by urban planning, and Article 2 (1) 1 (b) of the same Act provides a plan for the installation of "distribution business facilities" as one of urban planning. Thus, a project implementer does not directly install any facilities, such as warehouses, cargo storage structures, and other similar facilities and offices necessary for distribution business, but rather directly installs a site for the installation of such facilities and sells them to distributors, and it is possible for distributors to develop a site for the installation of the facilities and sell them to them in lots, so the project with the purpose of developing a site for distribution business facilities shall also be recognized as an urban planning project.

According to the facts acknowledged by the court of first instance as cited by the court below, on January 11, 192, the operator of the urban planning project (distribution business facilities) announced the project implementation permission to designate the defendant as the project operator of the first district of the "Seoul Metropolitan area joint distribution complex construction project" which is the urban planning project (distribution business facilities), and the defendant accepted the land in accordance with the related Acts and subordinate statutes on August 22, 1994 and formed a warehouse and office site, joint collection and delivery facilities site, road, park, and park on the project site including the land in this case until March 2004. Thus, in light of the aforementioned legal principles, even if the defendant, who is the urban planning project operator, did not directly install the warehouse, office, joint collection and delivery facilities on the land in this case, even if all or part of the land in this case did not constitute the land which became unnecessary due to the discontinuation, alteration, and other reasons within 10 years from the acquisition date of Article 91(2) of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works.

In the same purport, the court below is just to maintain the judgment of the first instance that rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff acquired a redemptive right to the land of this case since the creation of a site for the installation of distribution business facilities does not constitute an urban planning project for the installation of distribution business facilities, and there is no error in the misapprehension of

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 Justices.

Justices Jeon Soo-ahn (Presiding Justice)