[1] The meaning of "the pertinent project" and "the case where the whole or part of the acquired land becomes unnecessary due to the discontinuation, alteration, etc. of the pertinent project" under Article 91 (1) of the former Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects

[2] In a case where Gap local government acquired land Eul-owned for a road construction project, which is a public project, and thereafter approved and publicly notified a housing site development project plan including the above land to be expropriated, the case affirming the judgment below that the circumstance that Gap's local government's land was no longer necessary for the road construction project, which is the purpose of which the land was acquired through consultation, and that Eul's right of repurchase was created, and that the said land was again needed in the housing site development project,

[1] Article 91 (1) of the former Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (amended by Act No. 9595 of Apr. 1, 2009) / [2] Article 91 (1) of the former Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (amended by Act No. 9595 of Apr. 1, 2009)

Supreme Court Decision 94Da31310 Decided February 10, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 1302) Supreme Court Decision 2010Da30782 Decided September 30, 2010 (Gong2010Ha, 1987)

Plaintiff

Gyeonggi-do (Attorney Lee Sung-ho, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Suwon District Court Decision 2011Na39424 decided November 30, 2012

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to whether the instant land is subject to the exercise of a redemptive right under Article 91(1) of the former Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works (wholly amended by Act No. 9595, Apr. 1, 2009; hereinafter “Public Works Act”).

A. The term “relevant project” under Article 91(1) of the Public Works Act refers to a specific public project that serves as the objective of expropriation or acquisition through consultation, and it refers to a specific public project specified when obtaining project approval under Article 20 of the Public Works Act, and “the case where the whole or part of the land acquired due to the discontinuation, alteration, or any other cause of the pertinent project becomes unnecessary” refers to a case where objective circumstances arise to deem that the pertinent land does not need to be used directly for the relevant public project no longer due to the discontinuation, alteration, etc. of specific public project, regardless of the subjective intent of the project operator (see Supreme Court Decisions 94Da31310, Feb. 10, 1995; 2010Da30782, Sept. 30, 2010, etc.).

B. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff’s right to repurchase was created on May 30, 2008 due to the approval and public notice of the plan for the development project of the district designated for internationalization district and the district designated for housing site development (hereinafter “the instant housing site development project”), which included the instant land subject to expropriation on April 1, 200, as the public works for which the Defendant acquired the instant land that was owned by the Plaintiff on April 1, 204 by consultation (hereinafter “the instant road works”). Even if the instant land was again needed in the instant housing site development project, such circumstance does not affect the establishment of a right to repurchase on the instant land.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the establishment of a redemptive right under Article 91(1) of the Public Works Act.

2. As to whether the instant housing site development project is included in the subject of “the conversion of public works” under Article 91(6) of the Public Works Act

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the housing site development project of this case constitutes the housing site development project under Article 4 subparagraph 5 of the Public Works Act, and that the housing site development project under Article 91 subparagraph 5 of the Public Works Act is included in the "conversion of public works" under Article 91 (6) of the Public Works Act due to the amendment of the Public Works Act on April 5, 2010, and that the land of this case is subject to the approval of the plan for the housing site development project of this case on May 30, 208, since the plaintiff's right to repurchase has already occurred on May 30, 2008, the exercise of the right to repurchase

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and there is no error by misapprehending the legal principles on the subject of Article 91(6) of the Public Works Act.

3. Conclusion

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 on the bench.

Justices Park Poe-young (Presiding Justice)