Before public facilities revert to a local government without compensation, the legality of compensation imposed on a person who occupies and uses the facilities after obtaining permission for free use and promising to establish superficies from the housing site development project operator.

Article 83 (1) and (4) of the former Urban Planning Act (amended by Act No. 4427 of Feb. 4, 191), which applies mutatis mutandis under Article 25 (1) of the Housing Site Development Promotion Act, shall be deemed to be directly and indirectly reverted to Seoul Special Metropolitan City, which is a local government to manage the facilities when it notifies the Seoul Special Metropolitan City of the kinds of parks and details of land after completion of the housing site development project, and the land which is public facilities (urban parks) installed as a result of the housing site development project by notifying the Seoul Special Metropolitan City of the kinds of parks and details of land in Seoul Special Metropolitan City. In addition, the acquisition of ownership of the land in this case by the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, cannot be deemed to be a comprehensive succession, on the ground that the former owner of the land in this case is an acquisition under the provisions of the Act. Thus, even if the former owner of the Korea Electric Power Corporation grants to the Korea Electric Power Corporation a permit for free use of the land in this case and a promise to establish superficies on the land in this case, it shall not be justified in relation to the former Korea Electric Power Corporation.

Article 87(1) of the Local Finance Act, Article 25(1) of the Housing Site Development Promotion Act, Article 83(1) and (4) of the former Urban Planning Act (amended by Act No. 4427, Dec. 14, 1991)

Supreme Court Decision 89Nu1797 delivered on February 27, 1990 (Gong1990, 811) Supreme Court Decision 90Nu6972 delivered on March 12, 1991 (Gong1991, 1196) Supreme Court Decision 94Da18195 delivered on February 24, 1995 (Gong195Sang, 1427)

Korea Electric Power Corporation (Law Firm, Kim & Lee, Attorneys Yellow-in et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul Special Metropolitan City Nowon-gu, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 94Gu34205 delivered on December 6, 1995

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

(1) The court below decided on August 13, 1986 and December 17, 1986, when the non-party Korea Housing Corporation designated as the implementer of the housing site development project with approval of the implementation plan for the housing site development project. The non-party Korea Housing Corporation already expropriated the land for the housing site development project on the ground that the three period of transmission tower already installed within the project site would hinder the implementation of the project, and removed the land for the land for the two parcels of this case, which were planned to be developed as the planned site for park development, and made a promise to allow free use of the land for the three period of time, and to establish superficies for the land for which the plaintiff was removed. Since the land for the two parcels of this case was created as an urban park on November 29, 190, the court below decided on the legal status of the land for the land for which the plaintiff had no right to use the land for the land for which the plaintiff had no right to use and to manage the land for the land for which the plaintiff had no right to use the land for 14th of this case.

(2) However, under Article 83(1) and (4) of the Urban Planning Act (amended by Act No. 4427 of Dec. 14, 191; hereinafter the same) which is applicable mutatis mutandis under Article 25(1) of the Housing Site Development Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 4427 of Dec. 14, 191; hereinafter the same), the land of this case, which is public facilities (urban parks) installed as a result of the housing site development project by notifying the kinds of parks and items of land to Seoul Special Metropolitan City after completion of the housing site development project, shall be directly and indirectly reverted to Seoul Special Metropolitan City, which is a local government managing the relevant facilities (see Supreme Court Decisions 94Da18195, Feb. 24, 1995; 90Nu6972, Feb. 27, 1990; hereinafter the same). Thus, even if the Defendant did not separately acquire the land of this case from the owner of the land of this case, it cannot be deemed that it was a comprehensive succession of the land of this case.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that the disposition imposing indemnity of this case is unlawful on the premise that the plaintiff is in a legal status to justify possession, use, and profit-making of the above part of the site for transmission steel tower, is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to ownership of public facilities under the Housing Site Development Promotion Act and the Urban Planning Act or the imposition of indemnity under the Local Finance Act

(3) Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)