2016Chap23041 Implementation of procedures for changing the title of land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

May 31, 2017

July 12, 2017

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The defendant will implement the procedure to change the name of the tenant on the register of land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay regarding Ulsan-gu C****************** the name of the tenant on the register of land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay regarding 6m of 332 to the plaintiff as the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. In order to implement an urban development project (hereinafter “instant urban development project”) with respect to land of 96,50 square meters in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the Plaintiff was an urban development project cooperative that obtained authorization from the Ulsan Metropolitan City Mayor on May 17, 2006, and the Defendant was a general urban gas business entity that obtained permission to supply urban gas to Ulsan Metropolitan City under the Urban Gas Business Act, and a corporation AA (hereinafter “AA”) is an agent for the implementation of the instant urban development project.

B. On June 2012, the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and AA drafted a written agreement with the following terms for the supply of global gas (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

C. In accordance with the instant agreement, the Plaintiff changed the name of the owner on the register of land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay on October 10, 2012, namely, Ulsan-gu -******************32 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “instant land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay”).

D. The mandatory urban gas supply plan, which was notified by the Ulsan Metropolitan City Mayor around July 2007 to the Plaintiff, was written as follows.

A person shall be appointed.

E. On April 18, 2017, Ulsan Metropolitan City sent a reply to the fact-finding by this Court as follows:

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

(f) Relevant statutes, etc. 1;

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 3, 6, Eul evidence 1 to 2, and this court

A person shall be appointed.

[Ground of recognition] The absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the fact-finding inquiry and reply to the Ulsan Metropolitan City Mayor of this court, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Parties’ assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The agreement in this case, which was paid as the land allotted by the Plaintiff for recompense for development outlay, was null and void as it violated Article 23(1) and (3) of the Housing Act, which is a mandatory provision, or Article 55(1) and (2) of the Urban Development Act, which is a mandatory provision. Therefore, the Defendant’s ownership in the register of the land allotted by the Plaintiff pursuant to the agreement in this case null and void constitutes unjust enrichment, since the ownership in the register of the land allotted by the Plaintiff does not exist legal grounds, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to return unjust enrichment to the Plaintiff, thereby changing the ownership in the register of the land allotted by the land allotted by the recompense for development recompense for development recompense for development outlay for the Plaintiff from the Defendant to the Plaintiff.

2) The Defendant imposed the facility contributions to the F, who is a housing developer in the district* the river * the river * the river * the city gas supply contract with AC, which is a housing developer in the district, and entered into a separate agreement on the payment of the facility contributions. As such, the Plaintiff may not be subject to the instant agreement.

3) Since the Plaintiff made the instant agreement by coercion of the Defendant, the instant agreement is null and void.

B. The defendant's assertion

The Plaintiff’s change of the name of the owner of the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay in accordance with the agreement of the instant case to the Defendant at its original level can be deemed as the occurrence of the Plaintiff’s payment of the facility contributions to the Defendant under the provisions of the Urban Gas Business Act, which is the person who requested the supply of urban gas, as the person who is the person who is the person who is the person responsible to share the costs of installing gas supply facilities under Article 19-2(1) of the Urban Gas Business Act. Thus, the Defendant

3. Determination

A. Relevant legal principles

In full view of Article 23 of the Housing Act, Article 54 and Article 55 of the Urban Development Act provides that an implementer shall bear expenses incurred in the E business or an urban development project. However, according to Article 23(1) and (3) of the Housing Act, Article 55(1) and (2) of the Do Development Act, installation expenses of gas supply facilities shall be borne exceptionally by a supplier who is the installation obligor. The purpose of legislation is to implement E business or urban development projects is to install large-scale arterial facilities having the nature of social infrastructure for supplying essential public goods such as heating and gas in human residential life, such as district heating facilities or gas supply facilities, so it is considerably difficult to perform the project if the implementer is fully responsible for the installation and cost-bearing. In light of the legislative intent of this case, the installation of gas supply facilities and the installation costs of gas supply facilities are clearly defined in advance to prevent disputes over the installation and cost-bearing of the facilities and the subject of the supplier of the gas supply facilities so that the implementor can be regulated by the Constitutional Court.

On the other hand, Article 19-2(1) of the Urban Gas Business Act provides that the whole or part of costs of installation of gas supply facilities may be shared to the users who are beneficiaries of the urban gas business (supplier). The above provision provides that the costs of installation shall be shared by the beneficiaries of the urban gas business in the form of facility contributions, and such facility contributions are in the nature of beneficiaries’ charges (see Constitutional Court Decision 2001HunBa90, May 15, 2003). The legislative intent of this provision is ① an urban infrastructure project requiring large-scale investment in facilities at its early stage due to its characteristics, which requires a foundation to provide gas at a lower price than its investment resources through effective financing (see Constitutional Court Decision 201Hun-Ba90, supra). In the case of the Urban Gas Business Act, the purpose of this provision is to protect the beneficiaries of the urban gas supply facilities and to ensure the fair provision of urban gas supply facilities by the beneficiaries of the urban gas supply facilities, and to ensure the stable supply of urban gas to the beneficiaries of the above urban gas supply facilities without any local heating installation installation options.

In other words, each of the instant mandatory provisions is that a supplier who is liable to install gas supply facilities bears the snow costs. Article 19-2(1) of the Urban Gas Business Act shares the snow costs borne as such to the beneficiary’s share in the form of the beneficiary’s share, and is different from the purpose of legislation and the subject of regulation in each of the instant compulsory provisions. Therefore, the imposition of the cost for facilities that is incurred under Article 19-2(1) of the Urban Gas Business Act does not violate each of the instant compulsory provisions (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Da25927, 25934, Jan. 29, 2014).

B. Determination

1) Whether the agreement of this case is null and void in violation of each of the mandatory provisions of this case

In light of the above legal principles, comprehensively considering the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by adding the whole purport of arguments to the statements in the above facts, the above facts of recognition and the evidence mentioned above, Eul evidence Nos. 5-1 and 2, the defendant's order that the plaintiff change the name of the tenant in the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay to the plaintiff according to the agreement of this case to the plaintiff can be deemed to impose facility contributions under Article 19-2 (1) of the Urban Gas Business Act on the plaintiff. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff changed the name of the owner of the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development recompense for development outlay to the defendant according to the agreement of this case. Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

① In light of Article 19-2 of the Urban Gas Business Act, the Plaintiff constitutes “person requesting the supply of urban gas” as “person requesting the supply of urban gas,” and Article 19-2 of the Urban Gas Business Act, which was in force at the time of the agreement of this case, is amended to “person requesting the supply of urban gas or the alteration of a contract for gas supply” and clearly stipulates that if a person requesting the supply of urban gas requests a person who does not actually use urban gas, the Plaintiff should bear the cost of installing the gas supply facilities, even if the Plaintiff did not receive urban gas from the Defendant at the time of the agreement of this case, so long as the Plaintiff requested the supply of urban gas to the Defendant in connection with the urban development project of this case, the Plaintiff can be deemed as falling under “person requesting the supply of gas by a city, who is a person who bears the cost of installing the gas supply facilities under Article 19-2 of the Urban Gas Business Act.”

② According to the instant agreement, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant had the Plaintiff bear the pipeline construction cost up to the boundary of the site by parcel for urban gas supply in the urban development zone, the Defendant asserts that the Defendant imposed the Plaintiff the facility contributions under Article 19-2(1) of the Urban Gas Business Act on the ground that the Defendant had the Plaintiff change the name of the tenant in the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay, in accordance with the instant agreement, from the Plaintiff.

The case holding that it is reasonable for the Defendant to make sure that gas supply charges are paid to the Plaintiff under the name of 1st, 2nd, 3th, 4th, 4th, 6th, 6th, 4th, 6th, 6th, 6th, 6th, 6th, 6th, 6th, 6th, 6th, 6th, 6th, 6th, 6th, 6th, 6th, 6th, 6th, 6th, 6th, 6th, 6th, 6th, 6th, 6th, 6th, 6th, 6th, 6th, 6th, 6th, 6th, 6th, 6th, 6th, 6th, 6th, 6th, 6th, 6th, 6th, 6th, 6th, 66th, 66th, 196.

2) Whether the Defendant imposed double facility contributions on the Plaintiff

The statements in Gap evidence No. 7-1, No. 7-2, and Gap evidence No. 8 are alone, that the defendant imposed twice the same facility contributions as the facility contributions imposed by Eul to Eul Co., Ltd. on the plaintiff by Eul Co., Ltd., and there is no other evidence to acknowledge them. Rather, according to each of the above evidence, it can be found that the amount of facility contributions imposed on each of the above companies under high-priced level and the facility contributions imposed on the plaintiff (the value of the body portion of this case) is significantly different. Thus, it is determined that the plaintiff and the facility contributions borne by each of the above companies are likely to be different facility contributions. Accordingly, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3) Whether the Plaintiff reached the instant agreement by coercion of the Defendant

In light of the circumstances leading up to the agreement of this case, it is difficult to deem that the plaintiff reached the agreement of this case as the defendant's coercion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Accordingly, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit. It is also without merit, in light of the circumstances leading up to the agreement of this case, such as the fact that the plaintiff appears to have reached the agreement of this case after receiving legal advice on the preparation of the agreement of this case from law firm** after receiving legal advice on the preparation of the agreement of this case.

4) Sub-decisions

As seen above, the Defendant’s ordering the Plaintiff to change the name of the owner of the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay to the Plaintiff in accordance with the agreement of this case from the Plaintiff may be deemed to have imposed the facility contributions on the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 19-2(1) of the Do Gas Business Act. Thus, the agreement of this case cannot be deemed to violate each of the mandatory provisions of this case, and it cannot be deemed that the Defendant imposed double facility contributions upon the Plaintiff according to the agreement of this case or the Defendant’s coercion cannot be deemed to have reached the agreement of this case. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for return of unjust enrichment premised on the invalidity of the agreement of this case is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges in the future;

Judge Lee Jong-soo

Judge Lee Jong-chul

1) The statutory and public notice provisions, which were in force on June 2012 at the time of the instant agreement, were in force on the same day.

2) In a review report on a partially amended bill of the Urban Gas Business Act, a person to whom costs of installing gas supply facilities under Article 19-2 of the Urban Gas Business Act are apportioned

The change from "gas user" to "person who requests the change of urban gas supply or supply contract" is practically housing site development project.

In cases of a housing site development project implementer, etc. who is not a gas user requests for installation, etc. of gas supply facilities.

Since the controversy arises, the amendment bill is intended to improve it so that the implementer of the housing site development project can bear the costs of installation.

* There is a statement of opinion on the review report * The amendment of Article 19bis of the Urban Gas Business Act.

In light of the above, an urban development project association that requests the supply of urban gas to an urban development zone, such as the Plaintiff, requires the Urban Gas Business Act

It is reasonable to view that the facility contributions shall be borne pursuant to Article 19-2.