Plaintiff 1 and 21 others (Law Firm Han LLC, Attorneys Choi Jong-dae et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

E. E.S. (Attorney Park Jong-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

March 23, 2012

1. On August 1, 2011, the Defendant’s decision to exclude the Plaintiffs from the persons subject to the relocation measures for ○○○ Development Zone as to each of the Plaintiffs is revoked.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 30, 2005, the Mayor of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant project”) designated the Defendant as the project implementer, and publicly announced the date of relocation measures of the Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Mamdong, Yangdong-dong, Airport Dong, and Fire-Fighting Dong, and △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△ located in the fire-fighting dong and outside of the Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant project”).

B. On December 28, 2007, the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City made a public announcement of the designation of an urban development zone and the approval of the formulation of a development plan (Seoul Special Metropolitan City Notice No. 2007-491) on December 30, 2008, the designation of an urban development zone (the area of an urban development zone was changed to 3,363,591 square meters), the formulation of a development plan, the establishment of an implementation plan, the authorization of an implementation plan, and the publication of a topographic map (the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Notice No. 2008-498), and on February 11, 2010, the designation of an urban development zone (the area of an urban development zone was changed to 3,65,336 square meters) and the formulation and public announcement of a development plan

C. On August 29, 2008, the Defendant publicly announced a compensation plan in accordance with the relevant statutes, and on December 23, 2008, established and publicly announced the following relocation measures (hereinafter “instant relocation measures”).

[Measures for Relocation of this case]

The base date for relocation measures: December 30, 2005

(3) In cases where a person who had not continuously resided in the relevant apartment zone from the date of concluding a contract to the date of concluding a contract, and voluntarily transferred an apartment zone with the exclusive use area of 85 square meters or less within the project zone, has the right to move into the apartment zone with the exclusive use area of 85 square meters or less within the project zone. The right to move into the apartment zone with the exclusive use area of more than 85 square meters and less than 114 square meters and less than 280 square meters and less than 14 square meters in the public register to the person who has voluntarily moved into the housing zone from the date of concluding a contract for consultation or ruling on expropriation, has the right to move into the apartment zone with the exclusive use area of 135 square meters or less within 280 square meters and the right to move into the housing zone with the exclusive use area of 30 square meters or less before the date of public announcement of the land plan.

D. The remaining Plaintiffs, except Plaintiff 20, resided in the instant project zone prior to the date of the public notice of the compensation plan as shown in the attached Table, by acquiring a house (the Plaintiff 7 and Plaintiff 22 acquired each of the pertinent housing 1/2 shares, respectively), and reside therein by the date of the agreement on acquisition. The deceased Nonparty, who is the wife of Plaintiff 20, was donated a house within the instant project zone from Plaintiff 20 before the date of public notice of the compensation plan, owned it by the date of the agreement on acquisition, and lived with Plaintiff 20 on May 28, 201.

E. The Plaintiffs filed an application for the supply of apartment units with the Defendant on August 1, 201, but the Defendant rendered on August 1, 201, that the Plaintiffs did not have the right to take measures for resettlement as stipulated in the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation therefor (hereinafter “Public Works Act”) and disposed of that they are excluded from those subject to the measures for resettlement, but shall be specially supplied with houses for the smooth promotion of the instant project (hereinafter “each disposition

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 4, 5, 2, 3, 4-1 through 19, 21, 22, 5, 6-3, 4, 7-1 through 25, Eul evidence 1, 2, 3, 7-1, 7-1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

A person subject to relocation measures under the Public Works Act, who is not a special supply based on the Housing Act, etc. in lieu of the relocation measures under the Public Works Act, should be supplied with a house created in the resettlement settlement area. In addition, according to the criteria for relocation measures of this case, Plaintiff 20 shall be supplied with an apartment unit of not more than

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) According to Article 24 of the Urban Development Act, Article 78 (1) of the Public Works Act, and Article 40 (3) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, a project implementer shall provide residential buildings as a result of the implementation of an urban development project, namely, a person who is deprived of their base of livelihood or shall pay resettlement funds as prescribed by the Enforcement Decree of the Public Works Act for a person subject to relocation measures, but the owner of a building who does not continuously reside in the building from the date of the public announcement, etc. under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes for public works to the date of the conclusion of the contract or the date of the decision of expropriation is excluded from the person subject to relocation measures. In full view of the language, contents, and legislative intent of the above provisions, the "date of public announcement, etc. under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes for public works" shall be deemed as the criteria for the relocation measures for the person who is not the person subject to relocation measures, and shall also be able to provide the person subject to relocation measures with the original condition of the land that is subject to relocation measures for the original purpose of the project.

(2) Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, there is no ground to view that the former household member on December 30, 2005, which is the base date of the relocation measures publicly announced by the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor, falls under the "date of public notification, etc. under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes for public projects" as stipulated in Article 40 (3) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Works Act. Moreover, the relocation measures standard of this case is not to determine a person who is not the person subject to relocation measures as of December 30, 2005, which is the base date of the relocation measures, but to determine the type and size of the apartment as of August 29, 2008, which is the date of the public announcement of the indemnity plan, as a group of persons who acquired the housing within the project area prior to the date of the consultation and voluntary migration, whether they continuously reside in the relevant housing until the date of conclusion of the agreement or the ruling of expropriation, whether they are homeless persons in the project area, whether they are before or after the relocation date.

(3) Therefore, even according to the criteria for the relocation measures of this case, the plaintiffs and the deceased non-party except the plaintiff 20 who acquired a house or shares in the project area of this case before the date of the public announcement of the plan for relocation measures of this case are subject to the relocation measures of this case, and the plaintiffs 7 and 22 applied for the supply of the right to purchase the house as an act of preserving the house concerned, and the plaintiffs 20 (the defendant's co-inheritors are subject to the relocation measures of this case, but only the plaintiff 20 is the only co-inheritors, and the person who resided in the house concerned is subject to the relocation measures of the deceased non-party) succeeded to the status to be selected as the person subject to the relocation measures of the deceased non-party (if the plaintiffs are subject to the establishment and implementation of the relocation measures among the persons subject to the relocation measures and the persons obliged to pay the resettlement funds, it is unlawful to specifically determine the type and area of the apartment to be supplied in the case of the persons subject to the establishment and implementation of the relocation measures of this case.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims are reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judge Cho Jin-hun (Presiding Judge) Lee Jin-hun