The operator of a housing site development project shall confirm and determine a specific person as a person subject to relocation measures and provide a housing site, and the nature of disposition to withdraw such intention.

The reason is that the implementer of a housing site development project specifically prepares the criteria for selection of those eligible for relocation measures to select and supply housing sites is that the supply of housing sites is subject to relocation measures based on Article 8 of the Special Act on the Compensation for Public Loss and Compensation for Loss. The reason is that the other party to the supply of housing sites is subject to relocation measures based on Article 18 of the Housing Site Development Promotion Act, Articles 13 and 13-2 (5) 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 27 of the same Act are subject to the disposition taken by the implementer of the housing site development project, and the disposition that the implementer of the housing site development project confirms and determines specific persons as those eligible for relocation measures, but the disposition that the implementer of the housing site development project withdraws the supply of housing sites is also a disposition that the project implementer implemented by the housing site development project pursuant to the Housing Site Development Promotion Act, such as the initial confirmation and determination.

Article 8(1) of the Special Act on the Compensation for Public Loss, Article 5(5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Special Act on the Compensation for Public Loss, Articles 18 and 27 of the Housing Site Development Promotion Act, Article 13 and Article 13-2(5)4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Site Development Promotion Act, Article 18 of

Supreme Court en banc Decision 92Da35783 Decided May 24, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 1777), Supreme Court Decision 94Nu11934 Decided April 14, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 1884), Supreme Court Decision 94Nu11279 Decided October 12, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 3795), Supreme Court Decision 95Nu16844 Decided February 9, 1996 (Gong196Sang, 983), Supreme Court Decision 95Nu18147 Decided March 8, 1996 (Gong196Sang, 1280)

[Judgment of the court below]

[Judgment of the court below]

Seoul High Court Decision 95Gu4416 delivered on December 21, 1995

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, if the defendant revoked the above disposal of the housing site under the Housing Site Development Promotion Act on March 21, 1989 as the non-party subject to relocation measures for the non-party subject to relocation measures under the Housing Site Development Promotion Act, the non-party subject to relocation measures for the non-party subject to relocation measures for the non-party subject to relocation measures for the non-party subject to relocation measures on July 2, 1990 as the non-party subject to relocation measures for the non-party subject to relocation measures for the non-party subject to relocation measures for the non-party subject to relocation measures for the non-party 1, the non-party subject to relocation measures for the non-party subject to relocation measures for the non-party 1, the non-party subject to relocation measures for the non-party subject to relocation measures under the Housing Site Development Promotion Act on July 14, 190 and the non-party subject to relocation measures for the non-party subject to relocation measures for the non-party 1, the non-party housing site development project.

2. Article 8(1) of the Public Special Act provides that a project operator shall establish and implement relocation measures for those who will lose their means of livelihood by providing land, etc. necessary for the implementation of a public project as prescribed by Presidential Decree. The proviso of Article 5(5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Special Act provides that a project operator shall be deemed to have established and implemented relocation measures when he supplies a housing site or a house to a person subject to relocation measures pursuant to relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Housing Site Development Promotion Act or the Housing Construction Promotion Act. Article 18 of the Housing Site Development Promotion Act provides that a person who intends to supply a housing site shall obtain approval from the Minister of Construction and Transportation as prescribed by Presidential Decree (paragraph (1)). Article 13 and Article 13-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that the method of applying for approval of the supply of a housing site and the method of supplying a housing site to a person who owns a housing site within a planned area to be supplied with a free contract pursuant to Article 13(5)4 of the same Act.

Article 8 (1) of the Public Special Act provides that the project implementer is obligated to establish and implement relocation measures, and it cannot be deemed that specific rights directly arise to purchase the housing site or the right to purchase the apartment site under the relocation measures formulated by the project implementer itself. The project implementer establishes a detailed plan for relocation measures under the Housing Site Development Promotion Act, etc. and notifies or announces it to the relevant person, and only if the project implementer wishes to acquire the right to purchase the right, applies for the selection of the person subject to relocation measures in accordance with the procedures prescribed in the relocation measures, and the project implementer confirms and determines it as the one subject to relocation measures (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 92Da35783, May 24, 1994; Supreme Court Decision 94Nu1279, Oct. 12, 1995; Decision 2009Du1785, Oct. 12, 209). It is also deemed that the project implementer has prepared the criteria for selection of the person subject to relocation measures under Article 8 (3) of the Housing Site Development Promotion Act.

3. According to the facts acknowledged by the court below, in implementing the housing site development project of this case, the defendant issued a disposition to confirm and determine the plaintiff, who is the owner of the land and the land in the project district, as the object of the relocation measures, and concluded the housing site sales contract with the plaintiff and then notified the plaintiff of the cancellation of the above sales contract. The disposition of this case is a disposition of cancellation as to the disposition that the plaintiff was identified and decided as the object of relocation measures, and all of the dispositions of this case are conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Housing Site Development Promotion Act, and therefore the "disposition as stipulated in Article 27 of the same Act" is a disposition that the plaintiff was decided as the object of relocation measures.

Therefore, although the reasoning of the judgment below is not somewhat insufficient, the disposition of this case by the implementer under the Housing Site Development Promotion Act is deemed to be a disposition by the implementer under the same purport, and the administrative appeal of this case was filed with the aim of passing the period of administrative appeal under Article 27 of the same Act. Thus, the lawsuit of this case can be deemed to be unlawful because it does not meet the lawful requirements of administrative appeal. Accordingly, it is just to determine that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, and there is no error of law such as omission of judgment, lack of reason, violation of precedents, misunderstanding of legal principles, or misunderstanding

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all 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 Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)