(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.1.30. 선고 2014누52192 판결

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 19,662,00 won with 20% interest per annum from the day following the day of service of a copy of the claim and the cause of the claim in this case to the day of full payment.

Reasons

1. Quotation of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance;

This judgment is based on the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for adding or rejecting the following matters among the reasons for the judgment of the first instance. Therefore, it is based on Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(1) On face 4, the following shall be added to Chapter 13:

[2] Determination of this case's defense

A. The defendant's assertion

The act of a plaintiff, who is an administrative body authorized to implement a rearrangement project under the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 12116, Dec. 24, 2013; hereinafter referred to as the "Urban Improvement Act"), imposes the cost of the rearrangement project on a person subject to cash settlement, constitutes an administrative disposition, and thus, it is unlawful for the plaintiff to immediately seek payment as a party suit without undergoing

B. Relevant legal principles

A housing redevelopment project partnership under the Urban Improvement Act is a public corporation that implements a housing redevelopment project under the Urban Improvement Act under the supervision of the competent administrative agency, and has the status of an administrative agency that performs certain administrative actions within the scope of its purpose (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2007Da2428, Sept. 17, 2009). The administrative disposition subject to appeal means an act under public law of an administrative agency, which causes direct changes in the specific rights and obligations of citizens, such as ordering the establishment of rights or the burden of obligations with respect to a specific matter, or giving rise to other legal effects (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Du2799, Dec. 27, 2002). The administrative disposition refers to an act under public law of an administrative agency, which causes direct changes in the specific rights and obligations of citizens, and thus, must be individually determined depending on whether

C. Determination

Article 61(1) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas provides that the difference between the cost under Article 60(1) and the income accrued in the course of implementing a rearrangement project may be imposed and collected from the owners of land, etc. as a charge, and does not separately provide for the imposition and collection of the cost for a rearrangement project for a person subject to cash settlement. Moreover, the same does not apply to cases where the Plaintiff claims the payment of the charge to the Defendant based on Article 10(6) of the Articles of incorporation, and does not claim that

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim for performance, which is not based on the law, cannot be deemed as either ordering the establishment of rights or the burden of obligations under the law, or giving rise to other legal effects. Therefore, it is difficult to deem that direct change in the Defendant’s specific rights and obligations, which is a person subject to cash settlement, is an administrative disposition. Therefore, the form of litigation related to the obligation to bear the rearrangement project cost between the Plaintiff

Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion that the instant lawsuit is unlawful is without merit.

(2) The 4th parallel 14th parallel 2 shall be deemed to be "3", and the 24th parallel 3th parallel 4th parallel 4th parallel 4th parallel 4th parallel 4th parallel

2. Conclusion

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