Where a project operator under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Acquisition of Land for Public Use and the Compensation for Loss returns benefits to those subject to the relocation measures by establishing and implementing the relocation measures, whether a person who is excluded from the said measures by arbitrary interpretation of the project operator can demand the project operator to guarantee the same legal status as other persons who are subject to the relocation measures (affirmative)

Article 8 of the Special Act on the Compensation of Public Loss does not grant the project operator the ability to establish and implement the relocation measures, but imposes an obligation on the project operator. Accordingly, if the project operator has implemented and implemented the relocation measures specifically and has returned to the person subject to the relocation measures, the migrants excluded from the relocation measures due to arbitrary interpretation of the project operator can require the project operator to guarantee the same legal status as those of other persons subject to the relocation measures who are actually subject to the relocation measures, even though they meet the requirements for the relocation measures.

Article 8 of the Public Compensation for Loss

Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Korea National Housing Corporation, Attorneys Kim Jong-jin et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 90Na51202 delivered on March 10, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

On the first and third grounds for appeal

1. Article 8 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Residents (hereinafter referred to as the "Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Residents") provides that the project implementer shall establish and implement the relocation measures as prescribed by the Presidential Decree for those who would lose their base of livelihood due to the provision of land, etc. necessary for the implementation of the public project. Paragraph (2) of this Article provides that the project implementer shall consult in advance with the head of the competent local government in order to establish the relocation measures pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (1) of this Article. Paragraph (1) of Article 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Special Cases provides that the relocation measures established pursuant to the provisions of Article 8 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Residents shall include the basic living facilities according to the relevant local conditions such as roads, water supply facilities, drainage facilities and other public facilities in the resettlement area. Paragraph (5) provides that the relocation measures pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (1) shall be established and implemented in cases where those who wish to move to the resettlement area among those subject to the relocation measures are more than 10 houses. The purport of such measures should be considered as those who are practically exempt from the relocation measures.

2. According to the facts acknowledged by the court below, since the non-party 1 completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of non-party 2 after the date on which the person subject to the relocation measure of this case was selected, it is merely a title trust, and thus the title trust is terminated, its ownership is restored, and thus, the plaintiffs, the heir of the non-party 1, succeeded to the status as a purchaser in accordance with the resolution of the relocation measure of this case, and therefore, the judgment of the court below which confirmed the ownership of this case is just and there is a legal interest to seek such confirmation as above. Thus, the judgment of the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the interest of confirmation under Article 8 (1) of the Act on Special Cases

The precedent of the theory of lawsuit cannot be viewed as appropriate in this case, and there is no reason to discuss.

On the second ground for appeal

According to the records, we affirm the reasoning of the court below's judgment that non-party 1's living ground is lost by providing land necessary for the implementation of public projects under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Residents and is subject to the relocation measures of this case, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit.

The paper argues that the court below's exclusive right is not a person who has lost his living base as above on the premise of the fact that it is different from the fact recognized by the court below, but there is no reason to do so.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)