Requirements and criteria for exercising the right of repurchase under Article 91(1) of the former Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects;

Article 91(1) of the former Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (Amended by Act No. 11017, Aug. 4, 201)

Supreme Court Decision 2010Da12043, 12050 Decided May 13, 2010 (Gong2010Sang, 1129) Supreme Court Decision 2010Da30782 Decided September 30, 2010 (Gong2010Ha, 1987)

[Judgment of the court below]

Korea Water Resources Corporation (Attorney Park Jong-sung et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2012Na12209 decided July 3, 2012

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against each party.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed by Plaintiff’s attorney)

The former Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation Therefor (amended by Act No. 11017, Aug. 4, 201; hereinafter “Public Works Act”) may exercise the right of repurchase under Article 91(1) of the former Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation Therefor in cases where the whole or part of the acquired land becomes unnecessary due to the discontinuation, alteration, or any other cause of the relevant project. Here, “relevant project” refers to a specific public project which is an object of the acquisition or expropriation of the relevant land and is specific at the time of obtaining a project approval under Article 20(1) of the Public Works Act, and “delet or alteration of the relevant project” refers to the case where the whole or part of the acquired land becomes unnecessary” means a case where the need for the use of the relevant land for the relevant public project ceases to exist. In addition, whether the acquisition or expropriation of the relevant land has become unnecessary or not, not the subjective intent of the project operator, but the purpose and purpose of the relevant project and its scope, etc.

Examining these legal principles and records in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the court below acknowledged facts based on the adopted evidence, and held that the time when each of the lands of this case becomes unnecessary for the waterworks of this case based on the circumstances as stated in its reasoning is the full number of the way the water pipelines, which substitute the water pipelines installed in each of the lands of this case under the relocation project of this case, was transferred to March 20, 208, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the time when the repurchase right occurs, as otherwise alleged in

2. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

The lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion, based on its reasoning, that: (a) it is difficult to readily conclude that the “business related to the disposal of property rights to existing waterworks sites” as stipulated in the instant agreement includes repurchase-related business; (b) even if included, the said agreement is merely an internal agreement between the Defendant and the Korea Land and Housing Corporation (hereinafter “Korea Land and Housing Corporation as a result of the merger”); and (c) the Nonindicted Corporation decided on behalf of the Defendant to engage in any conduct related to repurchase on behalf of the Defendant; (d) the Defendant still bears the duty to notify the right to repurchase under the Public Works Act; and (e) the Defendant cannot be deemed to have any justifiable reason for failing to perform the legal obligation borne by the Defendant as a project operator under the Public Works Act; and (e) the lower court determined that the Plaintiff’s damages calculated the Plaintiff’s damages due to the loss of the right to repurchase. Furthermore, the lower court should take account of the Plaintiff’s negligence that did not exercise the right to repurchase as at the time of approval and announcement of the instant housing site development project.”

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above measures of the court below are just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to contract interpretation, establishment of tort, offsetting of negligence or scope of liability for damages, or incomplete hearing as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim So-young (Presiding Justice)