Whether a landowner in an urban redevelopment district may seek the removal of a new building and the delivery of land by the redevelopment cooperative prior to the disposal of the sale of the land (negative)

According to the former Urban Redevelopment Act (amended by Act No. 5116 of Dec. 29, 195), a landowner in a redevelopment area in which a housing improvement redevelopment project is implemented shall naturally become a member of the Housing Redevelopment Cooperatives (Articles 17 and 20), and when there is authorization and public notice of a plan for the management and disposal of a redevelopment project, the previous landowner may not use or benefit from the previous land until the date of public notice of the sale disposal plan (Articles 41(7) and (5), and 16). In addition, a redevelopment project implementer has the right to expropriate the land necessary for the project within the redevelopment area (Article 38(1)), and if the construction project is completed and public notice of the sale disposal is given, the redevelopment project implementer shall acquire the right to the land and constructed facilities sold in lots by the redevelopment project association, and at the same time lose the right to the previous land (Articles 49 and 51). It is not possible for the redevelopment project developer to seek the transfer of the ownership within the redevelopment area prior to the removal of the previous land.

Articles 20, 38, 41, and 49 of the former Urban Redevelopment Act (amended by Act No. 5116 of Dec. 29, 195), Article 2 of the Civil Act

Park Jong-hee

Freeboard Housing Improvement Development Cooperatives (Attorney Lee Dong-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul District Court Decision 95Na12902 delivered on June 20, 1995

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul District Court Panel Division.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the following facts: (a) on November 1, 1991, the Plaintiff: (b) sold 46.6/94 of the portion of the 94m2 railway site in Seodaemun-gu, Seoul on November 1, 1991, and registered the share transfer registration on November 28, 199; (c) on the part of the instant land and its neighboring land, the Defendant newly constructed a reinforced concrete structure slive roof, three underground floors, and five-story commercial buildings on the ground; (d) the above commercial building occupies sevenm of ground among the instant land; and (e) the remaining parts are used as the commercial passage and parking lot site; and (e) the Defendant, as a co-owner seeking preservation, was obligated to remove the portion of the commercial building constructed on the 7mm2 ground and deliver the instant land to the Plaintiff; and (e) thus, (e) the removal of the remaining parts after the removal of the building, the removal of the remaining parts and the defense by the Plaintiff constitutes abuse of rights.

2. However, according to the record, it can be known that the Defendant Cooperative is a housing improvement redevelopment cooperative established under the Urban Redevelopment Act, and the Defendant Cooperative newly constructed the instant commercial building on the land within the redevelopment area as part of the implementation of the redevelopment project. However, according to Articles 17 and 20 of the Urban Redevelopment Act, the land owners within the redevelopment area where the housing improvement redevelopment project is implemented are naturally members of the Housing Improvement Redevelopment Cooperative, and the Defendant newly constructed the building facilities under the redevelopment project on the land owned by the Plaintiff. In light of the fact that the land in this case is land within the redevelopment area and the Plaintiff is a member of the Defendant Cooperative.

However, when a redevelopment project management and disposal plan is authorized and announced, the previous landowner shall not use or benefit from the previous land until the date of the announcement of the sale order (Article 41(7), (5), and Article 16 of the Urban Redevelopment Act). In addition, the developer of the redevelopment project has the right to expropriate the land necessary for the project within the redevelopment area (Article 38(1) of the Act), and when the redevelopment project is completed and the sale order is announced after the completion of construction works within the redevelopment project, the partner shall acquire the right to the site and constructed facilities sold by the redevelopment project or receive the settlement money, and at the same time, lose the right to the previous land (Articles 49 and 51 of the Act).

Therefore, the right to use and benefit from land is restricted as above, and it is not allowed to seek removal of newly constructed construction facilities and delivery of land by the redevelopment association on the ground that the land owner who is obligated to transfer the ownership of land to the redevelopment association is the land owner until there is a sale disposition.

The abuse of rights is against the mandatory provisions, so the court may decide ex officio, and if the legal principles of the Urban Redevelopment Act are the same as the above, the court below should have deliberated on the land in the redevelopment area as the land in question, whether the management and disposal plan was authorized, whether the plaintiff is a member of the defendant association, etc., and judged whether to allow the plaintiff's request for removal of the commercial building in this case and delivery of the land in this case. However, the court below should have determined that the plaintiff's claim in this case does not constitute an abuse of rights. Thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of the legal principles of abuse of rights and incomplete deliberation, and in this regard

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)