Korea Land Compensation and Management Association (Attorney Kim Yong-ho, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Vocational Ability Development Institute

May 25, 2010

1. The defendant's rejection disposition against the plaintiff on August 27, 2008 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. The Plaintiff is an organization established on January 9, 2008 for the purpose of “an organization established on January 9, 2008 for the purpose of training professional compensation workers, promoting mutual cooperation among members, and contributing to the development of the compensation system and real estate policies through international exchanges, etc. through research and practical activities to efficiently implement fair compensation and public works.”

B. Based on Article 17(2) of the Framework Act on Qualifications, the Defendant is entrusted with the registration of private qualifications by the Minister of Education, Science and Technology.

C. On June 3, 2008, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for registration as a private qualification of a compensation manager to be newly established, managed, and operated by the Plaintiff.

D. In accordance with the provisions of Article 23(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on Qualifications, the Defendant confirmed that the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs constituted an area in which the establishment of a private qualification under each subparagraph of Article 17(1) of the Framework Act on Qualifications is prohibited. The Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs sent a reply that “The current Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation Therefor (hereinafter “the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc.”) maintains the project operator’s compensation principle, and that the compensation duties may be entrusted to a specialized compensation institution (Articles 61 and 81 of the Act). Therefore, the current Act does not recognize the qualification management system, as well as the current Act does not recognize the qualification management system, and in consideration of the smooth promotion of public works and appropriate rights and obligations with respect to private property.”

E. On August 27, 2008, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s private qualification registration as a compensation manager.

[Reasons for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2 evidence, Eul 1, 2, and 3 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The Public Works Act maintains the principle of project operator compensation, and among them limits the trustee of the compensation service to a specialized compensation institution under Article 81(1) of the Public Works Act, and thus, a compensation manager who has private qualifications under the Public Works Act is prohibited from being entrusted with the compensation service. However, since the Public Works Act does not prohibit the entrustment of the compensation service itself, the Defendant does not have any reason to refuse the application of the private qualification registration concerning the compensation service. However, even though there is no reason to refuse the application of the private qualification registration concerning the compensation service, the Defendant was bound by the opinion of the Ministry of Land

In light of the reality that a private qualification is registered and operated in a field where only certain registered business operators and legal institutions may be entrusted with their duties under the individual laws, and individual private qualification certificates are registered and operated in the field where there is a legal professional qualification, refusal of registration on the ground that only the qualification of a compensation manager applied by the Plaintiff is restricted by the Public Works Act is a discrimination without reasonable grounds.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

In light of the legislative purpose, contents, etc. of the Framework Act on Qualifications, it is reasonable to deem that the instant disposition on a different premise does not constitute a private qualification restriction field. Therefore, the instant disposition on a different premise is unlawful.

(1) The Framework Act on Qualifications is classified into national qualifications newly established, managed, and operated by the State in accordance with the statute, and private qualifications established, managed, and operated by any person other than the State, according to which the qualification system is established and operated by the State. The purpose of facilitating private qualifications is to ensure diversity of qualification systems and promote the development of national vocational abilities, and any corporation, organization, or individual other than the State may establish and register private qualifications, except in areas falling under any subparagraph of Article 17(

The Luxembourg Public Works Act provides for the principle of compensation for losses suffered by landowners or persons concerned due to the acquisition or use of land, etc. necessary for public works (Article 61), and the scope prescribed by the Presidential Decree among them may be entrusted to a specialized compensation institution prescribed by the Presidential Decree, such as a local government or a public institution or a local government-invested public corporation having expertise in the compensation affairs (Article 81). This is only a provision that strictly limits the trustee of compensation affairs in light of the public nature of the compensation affairs under the Public Works Act, and it does not provide for the purpose that only the specialized compensation institution can conduct the acts, such as investigating various public records and rights related to the entrusted compensation affairs, surveying the division and cadastral registration affairs, surveying the business, agriculture, fishery, and mining losses itself.

According to Gap evidence 1, the contents of the principal duties of a compensation manager newly established by the plaintiff are recognized as having been the establishment, public announcement, and perusal of a compensation plan, the examination of public records, such as land registers and building registers, and the examination of ownership and rights other than ownership of land, etc. In this regard, the contents of the duties that the project operator listed in the "Enforcement Decree of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects" may entrust to a compensation-specialized institution (Article 43(2)). Accordingly, the compensation manager to be newly established by the plaintiff refers to the duties that prohibit the entrustment to the private sector by the Public Works Act. However, the same contents as the compensation work does not enable the general public, other than the compensation-specialized institution, to perform the compensation work upon being entrusted by the private qualification acquisition of the same contents as the compensation work. Thus, the establishment of private qualification of a compensation manager whose contents are the same as the above duties does not violate the purport of restricting the scope of the trustee's duty in the Public Works Act.

Applicant The plaintiff intends to train professionals with respect to the compensation work by registering a compensation manager as a private qualification. The plaintiff is expected to contribute to the improvement of the professional agency's ability to perform the work, and there is no reasonable reason to prohibit the operation of a compensation manager's qualification as a compensation manager, if the professional who has obtained the qualification for a compensation manager is to engage properly in the compensation work at the specialized agency.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is justified and accepted.

[Attachment Form 5]

Judges Lee Jin-man (Presiding Judge)