[1] Whether the owner of land, etc. who voluntarily voluntarily withdrawn the application for parcelling-out after the expiration of the period for application for parcelling-out falls under the "person who withdrawn the application for parcelling-out" under Article 47 subparagraph 2 of the Act

[2] Where the articles of incorporation or management and disposal plan requires partners to enter into a contract for sale within a certain period after the termination of the period for application for sale, where the right to enter into the contract for sale is determined to be liquidated in cash if the contract for sale is not concluded within the period, the project implementer's obligation to pay the liquidation money to the person who became an additional object of settlement because the contract for sale

[3] In a case where Gap filed an application for parcelling-out with the Housing Redevelopment Project Association for parcelling-out after the expiration of the period for application for parcelling-out, and Gap revoked the application for parcelling-out after the expiration of the period for application for parcelling-out, the case affirming the judgment below holding that Gap's claim cannot be accepted on the ground that even if Gap voluntarily withdrawn the application for parcelling-out after the expiration of the period for application for parcelling-out, the payment of liquidation money to Gap does not occur until the expiration of the period for parcelling-out under

[1] Article 47 subparagraph 2 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents / [2] Article 47 subparagraph 2 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents / [3] Articles 38 and 47 subparagraph 2 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions

Plaintiff (Law Firm Shin, Attorney Song-chul et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

king New Zealand District Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association (Attorney Park Il-il et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee)

Seoul High Court Decision 2010Nu40993 decided June 30, 2011

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to Article 47 subparagraph 2 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), a project implementer shall liquidate land, buildings, or other rights within 150 days from the “date falling under the application for parcelling-out” to an owner of land, etc. who has withdrawn the application for parcelling-out according to the procedures as prescribed by the Presidential Decree. The term “person who has withdrawn the application for parcelling-out” refers to a person who has become an object of cash liquidation in the process of establishing a management and disposal plan, like those who have withdrawn the application for parcelling-out within the period of application for parcelling-out within the period of application for parcelling-out but have withdrawn it before the expiration of the period of application for parcelling-out, and cannot be deemed to fall under a person who has voluntarily withdrawn the application for parcelling-out after the completion

However, where the articles of incorporation or management and disposal plan of a project implementer requires members to conclude a contract for sale in cash within a certain period after the completion of the period for application for sale in lots, and the purport that the contract for sale in lots shall be liquidated in cash is provided to the owners of land, etc. who were members of the project implementer, by refusing to conclude the contract for sale in the relevant period, it may be deemed that the project implementer has additionally provided an opportunity to leave the project by refusing to conclude the contract for sale in lots. Accordingly, the project implementer’s obligation to pay the settlement money to the person who became an additional object of settlement due to the failure to conclude the contract for sale in lots even after the initial application for sale in lots was filed, shall be deemed to have accrued on the day following the expiration of the period for sale in lots (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Da37780, Oct. 9, 200

2. The court below accepted the judgment of the court of first instance and recognized the facts as stated in its reasoning, and determined that even if the plaintiff voluntarily withdrawn the application for parcelling-out within the period of application for parcelling-out after the completion of the period of application for parcelling-out, there is no obligation to pay the liquidation money to the plaintiff until the expiration of the period of contract for parcelling-out as stipulated in the management and disposal plan of this case, and therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the late payment should be

The judgment of the court below is just in accordance with the above legal principles, and there is no illegality in the misapprehension of legal principles as to Article 47 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. 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 Ahn Dai-hee (Presiding Justice)