(a) Institutional purport of the relocation measures for public loss and losses;

(b) Whether a specific right to purchase a housing site or a right to move into an apartment under Article 8 (1) of the same Act directly occurs to a migrant pursuant to the relocation measures;

(c) Confirmation and determination of a project operator and the legal nature of a disposition concerning relocation measures of a project operator, and the method of litigation on an application for selection of a person subject to relocation measures;

D. The legal nature of the right to purchase lots under the measures for resettlement under the same Act and whether the right to purchase lots can be sought as a civil lawsuit or a party suit under the public law

[Majority Opinion]

A. The Special Act on the Compensation for Public Loss and Compensation of Residents provides land necessary for the implementation of the public project with the relocation of residents who are deprived of their base of livelihood. The project implementer creates housing sites that include basic living facilities or constructs housing on the land, and individually provides migrants with the cost of input. The original purpose of the Act is to restore the previous living conditions of migrants to their original state, and at the same time, provide them with active and political consideration by the State as part of the so-called living compensation in order to guarantee their human lives.

B. Article 8(1) of the same Act provides that the project implementer is obligated to establish and implement the relocation measures, and it cannot be deemed that the specific right to purchase the housing site or the right to purchase the apartment site under the relocation measures formulated by the project implementer itself is directly generated by the relocation project implementer. The project implementer has formulated a detailed plan for the relocation measures and notified or publicly notified the plan to the person concerned, and then the project implementer has applied for the selection of the person subject to the relocation measures in accordance with the procedure as prescribed by the relocation measures, and the project implementer has accepted it and confirmed the person as the person subject to the relocation measures.

C. (1) The confirmation and decision made by the project executor as above is an administrative action that serves as a requirement for acquiring the right to purchase a parcel of land under the specific measures for relocation, and it cannot be deemed that it merely constitutes an act of fact that is required for procedural necessity. Therefore, in a case where a person who wishes to acquire the right to purchase a parcel of land files an application for the selection of a person subject to the measures for relocation pursuant to the prescribed procedure and the project operator excluded, rejected, or rejected it without the aforementioned confirmation, decision, etc., as the project executor is not a person subject to the measures for relocation, the migrant can, as a matter of course, seek the revocation of

(2) In a case where a project operator is not the same administrative agency as the State or a local government, but independently performs a public project under the special supervision of the State under the special supervision of the State, which is the purpose of existence of the public project, and accordingly takes measures for relocation, the disposition regarding the measures for relocation is a disposition under the public law that exercises the administrative authority legally granted and is subject to appeal, and if the disposition is unlawful or unjust, the disposition is a disposition under the public law that is subject to appeal litigation, the relevant public project operator may file

D. Such sales right is a right under the public law that can purchase housing lots or apartment houses acquired by a relocating entity by obtaining a confirmation and decision as a person subject to relocation measures from a project implementer who establishes and implements relocation measures as above. Therefore, it is not permissible for a relocating entity to seek confirmation of a sales right under the relocation measures by civil or public law with the party as the other party in a civil lawsuit, even though the former does not follow procedures such as an application for the selection of a person subject to relocation measures against a project implementer and the confirmation and decision accordingly, and it is more impossible to seek confirmation of a sales right as to specific parts of housing lots or apartment houses subject to such supply.

[Dissenting Opinion]

A. The relocation measures under the Act on the Compensation for Public Loss and Compensation for Residents are understood as a form of compensation for actual rights, and the Supreme Court precedents recognized this as a substantive right under the substantive law, and allowed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the right to purchase a house in accordance with the relocation measures by civil procedure. The relocation measures are compensated with the sale of a housing site or a house or the settlement money for resettlement. Since the settlement money for resettlement is a kind of compensation for losses, it cannot be denied that the right to purchase a housing site or a house to the same purport is a substantive right, and therefore, the right to purchase a housing site or a house to the same purport should be viewed as a substantive right.

B. The nature of the disposition of parcelling-out by the project implementer is not a disposition that grants the right to parcel out from the project implementer upon filing an application for parcelling-out, but a series of implementation dispositions that have fulfilled his/her duty with respect to the right to parcel out already acquired by the migrant, which is merely a process of embodying the right to parcel out already acquired by the migrant. When applying for the implementation of specific measures for relocation that should be recognized as a substantive right and the implementation thereof is not possible, a lawsuit seeking confirmation of illegality of omission can be instituted and a lawsuit seeking additional measures can be taken even in cases where specific measures for relocation are completed.

C. As such, the application for parcelling-out under the relocation measures is subject to the exercise of substantive rights. Therefore, a person subject to the relocation measures excluded from the specific relocation measures is allowed to file an appeal for infringement of rights if he/she refuses to apply for parcelling-out based on the circumstances, or even if he/she applies for parcelling-out again as already sold to the person subject to the relocation measures, he/she may seek confirmation of the right to buy-out as a person subject to the relocation measures or of his/her legal status, and in this case, the benefit of the lawsuit should be allowed only when the litigation for confirmation becomes an appropriate means for the remedy of rights in accordance with the general legal principles of the litigation law, which is the supplement

【Supplementary Opinion to the Dissenting Opinion】

A. The relocation measures under Article 8(1) of the Special Act on the Compensation of Public Loss and Compensation of Losses are not established and implemented voluntarily in the mutually beneficial consideration for migrants, but rather a system established as a part of the living compensation to restore migrants to their original living conditions, not the former financial status, and is deemed as a form of compensation for losses under Article 23(3) of the Constitution.

B. (1) It is reasonable to view that the sale of land by the project executor following the relocation measures under the same Act is a procedural implementation disposition that establishes and implements the abstract rights or interests acquired pursuant to the same Act on the ground that the migrant provides the land, etc. necessary for the implementation of the public project. The migrants should be deemed to acquire the ownership of land in accordance with the relocation measures that the project executor should establish without waiting for the sale of land by the project executor.

(2) Since the number of migrants's right to parcel out before the project implementer actually establishes relocation measures is merely an abstract right or legal status or interest, it is not possible to seek confirmation of such right or status because it is not recognized as a benefit of confirmation in this phase. However, if the project implementer refuses to establish relocation measures, it is possible to seek confirmation of illegality of omission if the project implementer refuses or neglects such request by the project implementer. However, since the abstract ownership of migrants is changed to a specific right as prescribed by the relocation measures after the establishment of relocation measures, the migrants excluded from the relocation measures can file an appeal suit seeking revocation by deeming the above parcel out application as a rejection disposition infringing on the substantive right. If the period of application exceeds the period of application, it is obvious that the project implementer should refuse the parcel out application even if it is evident that the parcel out application should be rejected, if it is implied, or if it is possible to obtain an implied decision, or if a dispute is possible to seek confirmation of the right to parcel out as a remedy or legal status of a party, the right to parcel out application can be resolved by legal remedy.

C. The current Administrative Litigation Act provides both an appeal litigation and a party litigation. Thus, in a dispute over legal relationship under public law, barring special circumstances such as where there are provisions such as Article 3 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance and Examination Act that are scheduled to be based only on an appeal litigation in respect of the method of remedying the right, a party lawsuit should be allowed in addition to an appeal litigation, unless there are special circumstances such as the absence of legal interest in the lawsuit. It is not necessary to restrict the method

A.B.C. Article 8(1)(a) of the Act on the Compensation of Public Loss and Loss, Article 5(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Compensation of Public Loss and Loss, Article 5(5) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Compensation of Public Loss and Loss (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12609, Jan. 24, 1989); Article 27(2) and (3)(c) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Compensation of Public Loss and Loss (amended by Ordinance No. 4444, Jan. 24, 1989); Article

C. Supreme Court Decision 92Nu1643 delivered on October 27, 1992 (Gong1992, 3314), 92Nu3618 delivered on November 27, 1992 (Gong1993Sang, 281), 93Nu14080 delivered on January 28, 1994 (Gong1992, 772), Supreme Court Decision 92Da14908 delivered on July 28, 1992 (repealed) (repealed)

Plaintiff

Korea National Housing Corporation (Attorney Kim Jong-soo et al., Counsel for defendant)

Suwon District Court Decision 90Na7101 delivered on July 7, 1992

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Suwon District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, when the defendant Corporation implemented the housing site development project for the house site development project for the house located in the Jung-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Gwangju Special Metropolitan City, the housing site development project for the house located in the project area (road address 1 omitted) and the 2,869 square meters shall be determined and publicly announced as the land to be expropriated for the execution of the project. Accordingly, the house of this case constructed on the ground of the above land is subject to removal as the obstacles. The defendant Corporation shall be deemed as the one for the compensation of the obstacles caused by the implementation of the above project, and if it is no house for the actual owner of the building to be demolished, it shall be deemed as the one for the removal of the above house, regardless of the place of residence, and it shall be decided as the one for the owner of the above house and shall be decided as the one for the removal of the above apartment site to be the one for which the owner of the right to be demolished by the defendant 1 and the one for the removal of the above apartment site shall be decided as the one for the removal of the above joint owner.

2. Article 8(1) of the Special Act on the Settlement of Residents provides that a project operator shall establish and implement relocation measures for those who will lose their base of livelihood by providing land, etc. necessary for the implementation of a public project (hereinafter referred to as "resettleds"), as prescribed by the Presidential Decree. Article 5(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Special Act on the Settlement of Residents (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12609 of Jan. 24, 1989) provides that the contents of relocation measures established pursuant to the above provision shall include road, water supply facilities, and other basic living facilities according to the relevant local conditions. Article 8(5) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Special Act provides that the relocation measures shall be established and implemented in cases where the number of those who wish to move to the settlement place is more than 30, while Article 27(2) and (3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Special Act on the Settlement of Residents (amended by Ordinance No. 444 of Jan. 24, 1989) provides that a project operator may install various public projects and install relocation facilities below the amount of relocation expenses.

In full view of the purport of the above provisions, measures for resettlement under the Act on Special Cases are established for migrants who lose their base of livelihood by providing land, etc. necessary for the implementation of public projects, and are individually provided to migrants with the cost of using the housing site that includes basic living facilities or the construction of housing on the ground. It is clear that the measures for resettlement under the Act on Special Cases are established as part of the so-called "living compensation" in order to restore the previous living conditions of migrants to their original state and at the same time by guaranteeing their living worthy of human dignity.

However, the relocation measures under the Act on Special Cases, which are based on the guarantee of property rights or the fundamental foundation of social security, do not go through the provisions of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes as to the requirements, procedures, the contents of the measures, and the effects of the implementation thereof, and most of them leave over the individual dispositions of the project implementer.

Fundamentally, the above relocation measures are established and implemented under the responsibility and supervision of a public project operator on the basis of the intention that the migrant wishes to move to the resettlement area. In particular, the specific contents are determined by the project operator at a discretion in consideration of all the circumstances such as the type and nature of the relevant public project operator, the project operator's business situation or conditions, and the scale of the person subject to the relocation measures, and the project actually takes various forms of benefits, such as sale of the housing site, granting of the right to move into an apartment house, and building

In light of the above, it is difficult to say that Article 8(1) of the Special Act on the Settlement of Residents imposes an obligation on a project operator to establish and implement relocation measures, and that the specific right to purchase a housing site or an apartment house (hereinafter referred to as a "right to purchase a housing site") is directly generated by a project operator under the relocation measures established by the project operator only by the provision itself, and it is impossible that the project operator establishes a detailed plan for relocation measures and notifies or announces the plan to the relevant person, and then the project operator must file an application for the selection of the project operator in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the relocation measures and accept it and determine the project operator as the person subject to relocation measures, only if the project operator wishes to acquire the right to purchase a housing site or the right to purchase an apartment site, it is reasonable to say

The above confirmation and decision by a project operator is an administrative action that is a requirement for acquiring the right to purchase a parcel of land under the specific measures for relocation, and it cannot be evaluated as merely an act of fact in accordance with the procedural needs.

Therefore, in a case where a person who wishes to acquire the right to take relocation measures applies for the selection of a person subject to the right to take relocation measures in accordance with the prescribed procedure and the project operator excluded, or rejected it without the aforementioned confirmation, determination, etc., the migrant is naturally entitled to seek a revocation of the disposition of exclusion or rejection by an appeal litigation against the project operator (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Nu3618, Nov. 27, 1992). In a case where a project operator is not an administrative agency like the State or a local government, but independently performs a public project under the special supervision of the State under the special supervision of the State under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes and takes the measures of relocation, the disposition regarding the measures of relocation is a disposition by exercising the right to take administrative action under the Acts and subordinate statutes, which is subject to appeal litigation, and thus, if the disposition is unlawful or unjust, the relevant public project operator may file a lawsuit against the relevant public project operator (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision

In addition, such sales right is a right under the public law that can purchase housing lots or apartment houses acquired by a relocating entity by obtaining a confirmation and decision as a person subject to relocation measures from a relocating entity. Thus, it is not permissible to seek confirmation of a sales right under the relocation measures by civil or public law with the subject of a person subject to relocation measures as the other party in the situation where the migrant did not follow procedures such as an application for the selection of a person subject to relocation measures against a project implementer and the confirmation and decision accordingly, and it is no longer impossible to seek confirmation of a sales right by means of a civil or civil lawsuit. Furthermore, it is more impossible to seek confirmation of a sales right with regard to specific parts of housing lots or apartment houses subject to the supply (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da17108 delivered on December 27, 191). The previous opinion is different from the previous opinion to the purport that it is possible for a party member to seek confirmation of such a sales right by a direct civil lawsuit.

3. A health stand-on as a result of the instant case, even if the lower court properly acknowledged, when the Defendant Corporation implemented a housing site development project based on the Housing Site Development Promotion Act and takes measures for relocation accordingly, the Plaintiff did not actually apply to the Defendant Corporation for the selection of a person subject to relocation measures, and did not receive confirmation and determination from the Defendant Corporation. Thus, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have the right to purchase land in accordance with the relocation measures of the instant case as a specific and real entity.

Ultimately, under the premise that the plaintiff is qualified as the object of the relocation measures under the provisions of the Act on Special Cases, the main claim of this case seeking confirmation against the defendant Corporation that the plaintiff had the right to purchase the apartment of this case, which was supplied by the relocation measures, by specifying the apartment of this case as a civil suit against the defendant Corporation, shall not be exempted from rejection as unlawful. Nevertheless, the court below, based on the premise that it is legitimate, accepted the main claim and accepted the main claim, and did not make a determination as to the conjunctive claim seeking confirmation that the claim for compensation for loss under the Act on Special Cases exists to the plaintiff. Thus, there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the relocation measures under the Act on Special Cases and the subject of lawsuit under the Civil Procedure Act. The argument points out

However, according to the records, the plaintiff, a migrants, is unable to be informed of the fact that he did not receive an individual notification that he would request the selection of a person subject to the relocation measures from the project operator, and therefore it is difficult to deal with the situation that the plaintiff could not apply for the selection within the prescribed period of application. Thus, if it is true, it is difficult for the plaintiff to deal with the situation at all solely because he had already passed the period of application for the selection of a person subject to the relocation measures, and even if the plaintiff applied for the selection of a person subject to the relocation measures in accordance with the procedure stipulated in the original relocation measures, and the measure is illegal in response to the response of the project operator, the cancellation of the refusal disposition if the project operator rejected it, and if there is no response to the application, it is considered that the plaintiff may be subject to proper relief by demanding the

4. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench, except for Kim Jong-won, Lee Jong-chul, Lee Jong-chul, Lee Jong-ho, and Park Jong-chul.

The dissenting opinion of Justice Kim Sang-won, Justice Song Man-chul, Justice Park Jong-ho, Justice Park Jong-ho, and Justice Park Jong-chul is as follows.

The majority opinion is that Article 8(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Residents imposes an obligation on a project implementer to establish relocation measures, and it is impossible to claim confirmation of ownership of ownership of ownership of ownership of ownership of ownership of ownership of ownership of ownership of ownership of ownership of ownership of ownership of ownership of ownership of ownership of ownership of ownership of ownership of ownership of ownership of ownership of ownership of ownership of ownership of ownership of ownership.

In conclusion, the above opinion does not distinguish the sale of housing under the above relocation measures from the supply of housing (special supply) that grants only procedural rights to the special supply subject under the above regulations within the limit of 10% of the supplied housing pursuant to Article 32 of the former Housing Construction Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 4724 of Jan. 7, 1994) and Article 15 of the Housing Supply Rules.

However, the relocation measures under the Act on Special Cases are understood as a form of compensation, which is a substantive right, as a matter of theory, and the Supreme Court's precedent recognizes it as a substantive right under the substantive law (Supreme Court Decision 91Da17108 delivered on December 27, 1991) and allowed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the right to purchase a house under the relocation measures as a civil lawsuit (Supreme Court Decision 92Da14908 delivered on July 28, 192).

The relocation measures shall be compensated with the sale of housing lots or housing units or the resettlement subsidies according to the case of the relocation measures. Since the resettlement subsidies are a kind of compensation for losses as seen above, it cannot be denied that they have a substantive right as usual compensation, and therefore, the right to purchase housing lots or housing units to the same purport shall be deemed as a substantive right.

Even if it cannot be seen as a right, it should be seen as a right relationship or legal relationship which is the object of confirmation litigation at least.

The majority opinion argues that each of the above statutes does not stipulate the specific contents of the relocation measures as a theoretical basis to deny the above legal relationship. However, it cannot be uniformly determined in light of the nature of the relocation measures, and it is necessary to recognize the possibility of discretion as to the procedure, method, and contents of the plan as to the implementation of the specific relocation measures, since it is determined in consideration of the kinds and nature of the relevant public project, the project operator’s business situation or circumstances, the scale of the person subject to the plan

However, this is a binding discretion that should guarantee a reasonable living compensation. Therefore, if there is no reason to deny the substantive legal relationship of the relocation measures and to regard the procedural right as the procedural right, and if the universality of the right is a problem, it will be understood as a comprehensive legal relation or legal status, and therefore, it cannot be a ground to deny the confirmation lawsuit.

Therefore, in case where a migrant receives a parcelling-out order from a project implementer by filing an application for parcelling-out, the nature of the disposition of parcelling-out by the project implementer is not a disposition to grant a right to parcel out to a migrant, but it is merely a series of implementation dispositions that have fulfilled his/her duty with respect to the right to parcel out already acquired by a migrant, and it is merely a process of embodying the ownership already acquired by

If it is considered that the right to apply for parcelling-out is only the procedural right to apply for a specific relocation measure, such as the majority opinion, the project implementer cannot exercise the procedural right to apply for the relocation measure when the project implementer does not specifically establish the relocation measure or when the relocation measure has already been terminated.

It is possible to file a lawsuit for confirmation of illegality of omission in the absence of the implementation of specific measures for relocation that should be recognized as a substantive right and receive the remedy for infringement of rights.

The majority opinion states that if the migrant did not apply in the specific relocation measures because he did not receive notification, he/she may apply again and seek relief, but this is not only insufficient as a remedy theory for the migrants who did not apply within the period of application due to the reasons acceptable, but also as a theory that is not compatible with the majority opinion and the theory that does not have utility if specific relocation measures are terminated.

It should be recognized as a substantive right, but it can be applied whenever it is not considered to waive its right, and even if specific measures are terminated, it will be allowed to request additional measures for relocation.

The second rejection disposition is also a disposition subject to appeal litigation without considering the period of application in cases where the first application for parcelling-out is refused under the relocation measures, and the second rejection disposition is again refused after one year, and the second rejection disposition is also a disposition subject to appeal litigation. It should be understood as a theory premised on the premise that the right to apply for parcelling-out is understood as a substantive right derived from the right to apply for parcelling-out, unlike the procedural right under the Housing Construction Promotion Act and the Housing Supply Rules.

As above, the application for parcelling-out under the relocation measures shall be subject to the exercise of substantive rights, so the person subject to the relocation measures who is excluded from the relocation measures shall be allowed to seek confirmation of the right to parcelling-out as a person subject to the relocation measures or of the legal status of the person subject to the relocation measures, even if the person subject to the relocation measures who already bought-out or again applied for parcelling-out as a person subject to the relocation measures who has already been rejected the application for parcelling-out according to the circumstances, or even if he/she again applied for parcelling-out, it shall be allowed to seek confirmation of the right to bring-out as a person subject to relocation measures or his/her legal status as a person subject to the relocation measures. In this case, there is a need for confirmation of the right to bring-out or the legal status of the person subject to relocation measures, rather than a building without permission of this case subject to relocation measures, which is not owned by the plaintiff but already owned by the co-Defendant 1 of the court below, and in this case, it is clear that the defendant again failed to comply with the application for parcelling-out by the plaintiff.

However, such a lawsuit is a legal relationship in the public law and thus constitutes a party litigation in the administrative litigation, and thus, the judgment of the court below that dealt with the lawsuit is reversed, and the expression of the claim for confirmation of sale right to a specific apartment in this case can be corrected in a manner consistent with the interests of the lawsuit in this case, so it is reasonable to transfer the claim to the Seoul High Court, which is the competent court, in order to re-examine it from

Justices Jeon Man-chul added to the Dissenting Opinion.

1. The majority opinion is a system established by the active and political consideration of the State while the relocation measures under the Act on Special Cases are a lump sum of compensation for living, and the purport of which is to regard such relocation measures as compensation for losses under public law is unclear. However, the relocation measures under Article 8(1) of the Act on Special Cases are not established and implemented voluntarily in the beneficial consideration of migrants by the project implementer, but they are arranged as part of compensation for living in order to restore migrants to their living conditions, not as previous financial status, and as the majority opinion properly states, it shall be deemed as a form of compensation for losses under Article 23(3) of the Constitution.

Nevertheless, the majority opinion argues that the right to purchase a house does not occur under the Act on Special Cases and that the project implementer is entitled to the right to purchase a house as a person subject to the relocation measures, and that the right to purchase a house takes place only when it is confirmed and decided as a person subject to the relocation measures, is not a mutually beneficial consideration, but a compensation for losses under the Act on Special Cases. Further, the majority opinion argues that Article 8(1) of the Act on Special Cases does not simply declare the provisions of the Act on Special Cases, but imposes an obligation on the project implementer without any possibility of discretion as to whether to establish the relocation measures and imposes an obligation on the project implementer so that the project implementer can compensate for specific livelihood, and further it is confused without distinction from the special supply of a house under the Regulations on Housing Supply, which gives benefit to the special supply of a house by promoting the smooth implementation

2. It is reasonable to view that a project executor’s disposition under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Residents is not a disposition that grants residents the right to parcel out to the same person as the majority opinion, but a procedural implementation disposition that establishes and implements abstract rights and interests acquired under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Residents based on the provision of land, etc. necessary for the implementation of public projects by

The Act on Special Cases, its Enforcement Decree, and its Enforcement Rule impose an obligation on migrants who lose their base of livelihood due to the provision of land, etc. necessary for the implementation of a public project by a project operator to take measures for resettlement as a livelihood compensation in addition to the payment of compensation as a substitute for property, and to provide resettlement funds in certain cases. If so, such migrants acquire a claim for monetary compensation in response to the acquisition of a claim for monetary compensation in the substitute property compensation, as in response thereto, it shall be deemed that they acquire a right to purchase land in accordance with the relocation measures that the project operator should establish and implement

However, even if the project operator does not take measures for relocation, the right to sell migrantss before the project operator actually establishes measures for relocation is merely an abstract right or legal status, and thus it is not possible to seek confirmation of such right or status because it is not recognized as a benefit of confirmation at this stage. However, if the project operator does not take measures for relocation, if he/she refuses or neglects to take measures for relocation, he/she may seek confirmation of illegality of omission (such things are without any theory, but it is based on the theory).

However, after the relocation measures have been established, since the abstract number of migrants' right to parcel out has been changed to a specific right as prescribed by the relocation measures, the migrants excluded from the specific relocation measures can file an appeal suit seeking revocation by deeming the above-mentioned parcel-out right as a rejection disposition that infringes on the substantive right to apply for a parcel-out right (the exercise of the substantive right to apply for a parcel-out right) if they are rejected. In the case of this case, where the application period has been applied like this case, it is obvious that the project operator would be refused even if the parcel-out right is denied in advance or the parcelling-out procedure is completed in accordance with the relocation measures, or where there are special circumstances where the dispute is resolved and the lawsuit seeking confirmation can be an appropriate means for the remedy of the right to parcel-out right or its legal status as a party litigation.

3. If the majority opinion does not have the right to purchase lots, and it is interpreted that there is only the right to apply for lots, the ground for the occurrence of the right should be found in the relocation measures established by the project implementer rather than in the special cases. According to such opinion, the migrants who do not establish the relocation measures do not have the way to dispute the legitimacy of the relocation measures, and even if the project implementer establishes the relocation measures, the migrants excluded from the scope of the subjects or the right to apply for the relocation measures would not legally appeal even if they are not granted the procedural right to apply for the relocation measures, and if the migrants excluded from the scope of the subjects are not legally entitled to receive the living compensation due to the relocation measures, they are determined in the form of investigating and determining the buyer ex officio without recognizing the right to apply for the relocation measures, or by deciding that the project implementer is to grant the right

4. If the majority opinion does not receive an individual notice from a project operator to request the selection of a person subject to relocation measures because it is difficult to know the fact that the plaintiff could apply for the selection even if the plaintiff failed to apply for the selection within the prescribed application period, it should be evaluated as a consideration given from the grievance to protect the rights of migrants by supplementing a part of the unfair result that may arise from the basic theory of the majority opinion, but it cannot be questionable as to how such interpretation can be made in the basic theory of the majority opinion, and as to how it is possible to interpret such interpretation in logic.

Pursuant to the majority opinion, since the requirements for implementing measures for relocation are subject to the disposition of the project implementer, the establishment of the period of application shall also be deemed to have been entrusted to the project implementer, so there is no ground or room for such interpretation unilaterally unless the project implementer first determines what the contents have been established as a specific measures for relocation, and the application period established by the project implementer in 1989 (from December 29, 1987 to February 29, 1988) can be exercised after the expiration of the period of application established by the project implementer for the plaintiff who filed the lawsuit in this case (from February 29, 1987 to December 29, 198) with the knowledge of how the plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case during the 1989, and it is difficult to know at any time whether the application can be made after the completion of the procedure of sale in accordance with the measures for relocation, and thus, there is room for criticism that the application can be completed within a certain period of time and stable implementation of the project by receiving the application for sale in lots.

In addition, according to the theory of the majority opinion, the project implementer cannot be obliged to give an individual notification to the migrant who is required to apply for the selection of the person subject to the relocation measures, and even if individual notification is given, it is merely beneficial measure to urge the exercise of the right to apply for the relocation measures, and the migrants are not superior even if such individual notification is not provided in the relocation measures, and if such individual notification is not received, it is doubtful whether it is contradictory to the basic theory of the majority opinion to deem that the project implementer can file an application even if it is not in compliance with the relocation measures. Rather, the provision of individual notification in the relocation measures is based on the premise that the migrant has substantive rights.

In addition, in the case of this case, the public announcement of the implementation of relocation measures in daily newspapers was made, and the public announcement was made in daily newspapers to the extent that the plaintiff could have known of the fact, barring any special circumstances.

5. The majority opinion states that migrants shall acquire the right of parcelling-out by making an application for parcelling-out in accordance with the procedure determined by the project implementer for parcelling-out, and therefore, the right to apply for parcelling-out by migrants shall be deemed to have occurred and extinguished as prescribed by the relocation measures formulated by the project implementer. Therefore, if the project implementer sets a specific period in the relocation measures and provides that the project implementer is unable to exercise the right of application without the application within the specified period, it shall lose the right to apply for parcelling-out regardless of being aware of whether the individual notification is given or the announcement is made, and the project implementer shall not exercise the right of application unless he/she accepts the application mutually after the application period expires.

In accordance with the majority opinion, if it is deemed that the right to apply for parcelling-out is not lost in such case, the consistency of logic is lost, and if it is deemed to be lost, it goes against the legislative intent of relocation measures, so it is reasonable to understand the rights of migrants as substantive rights, and it is reasonable to recognize the rights of migrants as substantive rights, and if the migrant fails to apply for parcelling-out within a considerable period of time even after receiving individual notification, it would be deemed to waive the right to buy-out in accordance with the general legal principles, and

6. The current Administrative Litigation Act provides both an appeal litigation and a party litigation. Thus, in a dispute over legal relationship under public law, barring special circumstances such as where there are provisions such as Article 3 of the Act on the Promotion of Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance and Examination of Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance, Etc., the method of remedying the right should be applied only to an appeal litigation, and the method of remedying the right of citizens, which is unnecessary, should not be restricted.

Since the law is in existence to establish norms governing social activities and social phenomena, to protect rights, and to properly relieve when this has been violated, the scope of protection or remedy function of the law is not restricted by itself, and even in the case of this case, it is not limited to the right to apply for parcelling-out by migrants to a narrow interpretation as procedural right to apply for parcelling-out, and it is necessary to allow a party suit as long as the interests in the lawsuit are recognized.

In the past, the traditional one is merely anti-private interest or de facto interest by evaluating it as a legal interest and protecting it in the same way as that of the rights and interests of the people, thereby operating the law in the direction to protect the rights and interests of the people and protect the rights and interests of the people, and thus, it is difficult to deny the nature of the rights and interests of the person subject to resettlement pursuant to the Act on Special Cases, which can only be realized upon the confirmation judgment, and simply have procedural right to file a petition only. Thus, it cannot be said that it goes against the current trend in which the protection of the rights and interests of the people is sought by widely recognizing the procedures and methods of the protection of the rights and interests of the parties.

Justices Yoon Jong-young (Presiding Justice)