[1] Where the Urban Redevelopment Act, which is the basis of the construction completion and authorization of a management and disposal plan for a housing redevelopment project, has been amended, and no special transitional provision is otherwise provided, the statutes that serve as the basis for the calculation and imposition of liquidation money (=amended statutes)

[2] In the case of an urban redevelopment project implemented by a local government as a project implementer, whether it violates the Urban Redevelopment Act and subordinate statutes stipulating the "price assessment method" as stipulated in the Municipal Ordinance concerning the method of assessing the liquidation amount (affirmative)

[1] In principle, an administrative disposition shall be conducted based on the law at the time of disposition. In a case where the standard is modified by the amendment of the law, the standard prescribed by the amended law at the time of disposition shall apply unless otherwise specified. The approval and completion of construction of a management and disposal plan for a housing redevelopment project under the former Urban Redevelopment Act (amended by Act No. 5116, Dec. 29, 1995); however, the former Urban Redevelopment Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15096, Jun. 29, 1996); the former Urban Redevelopment Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 5116, Dec. 29, 1995) and the former Enforcement Decree (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15096, Dec. 14, 1996; Presidential Decree No. 15096, Dec. 29, 196; Presidential Decree No. 15196, Dec. 16, 1996).

[2] In light of the general reality that the existing method of assessing the area of land within a re-development project area is the increase in the value above the input cost as a result of the implementation of the redevelopment project, it is in comparison with the method of price assessment under the Urban Redevelopment Act amended by Act No. 5116 of Dec. 29, 1995 and the amended by the Presidential Decree No. 15096 of Jun. 29, 1996, the land price assessment method under the amended by the Presidential Decree No. 15096 of Jun. 29, 1996, first of all, excluded the area of the land allotted by the development recompense land based on the estimated project cost amount from the object of parcelling-out, thereby reducing the area of the site to the landowners within the project area, and if the method of price assessment is based on the method of price assessment, some of the cost of the redevelopment project added to the price of the site can not be disadvantageous to the landowners, and thus, it cannot be avoided by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport and Transport Act, including the above method of Land Redevelopment Act.

[1] Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [general administrative disposition] Article 1 of the Urban Redevelopment Act, Article 42 of the Urban Redevelopment Act (amended by Act No. 5116 of Dec. 29, 1995), Articles 40 and 45 of the Enforcement Decree of the Urban Redevelopment Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15096 of Jun. 29, 1996), Article 53 of the former Urban Redevelopment Act (amended by Act No. 5116 of Dec. 29, 1995), Article 46 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Urban Redevelopment Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15096 of Jun. 29, 1996), Article 60 (see the current Article 40 of the Urban Redevelopment Act), Article 15 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Urban Redevelopment Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15096 of Dec. 29, 199), Article 16 of the Local Autonomy Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 151960 of Jun. 29, 1996)

[1] Supreme Court en banc Decision 84Nu77 delivered on May 22, 1984 (Gong1984, 1145), Supreme Court Decision 95Nu10877 delivered on August 20, 196 (Gong1996Ha, 2874), Supreme Court Decision 97Nu13818 delivered on March 10, 200 (Gong200Sang, 93Nu17850 delivered on April 25, 1995) (Gong195Sang, 185Sang, 194Nu13626 delivered on June 13, 195) (Gong195Ha, 2286) (Gong195Ha, 2286), Supreme Court en banc Decision 310Du3705 delivered on March 15, 2015

Plaintiff 1 and 691 others (Attorneys Shin Sung-sung et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The head of Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (Seo Law Firm, Attorneys Park Sang-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 98Nu8171 delivered on February 10, 1999

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below stated the difference between the size of the new redevelopment project of Yongsan-gu and the new redevelopment project under the former Enforcement Decree of the Urban Planning Act (amended by Act No. 2988 of Dec. 31, 1976) and the 9th appraisal method for the improvement of the housing unit of Yongsan-gu (hereinafter referred to as the "former Enforcement Decree of the Urban Redevelopment Act") as the 19th appraisal method and the 19th appraisal method of the land unit size of the new redevelopment project under the former Enforcement Decree of the Urban Redevelopment Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2968 of Dec. 31, 1976) and the 19th appraisal method for the 19th appraisal method for the improvement of the housing unit of Yongsan-gu (hereinafter referred to as the "former Enforcement Decree of the Urban Redevelopment Act") and the 19th appraisal method for the 19th appraisal method of the land unit of the new redevelopment project. The defendant shall pay the 19th appraisal area as the 16th appraisal method.

2. An administrative disposition should, in principle, be taken based on the laws and regulations at the time of the disposition. In a case where the standard is changed due to the amendment of the laws and regulations, the standard prescribed in the amended Acts and subordinate statutes at the time of the disposition shall be applied unless otherwise specifically provided (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 84Nu77, May 22, 1984; 95Nu10877, Aug. 20, 196; 97Nu13818, Mar. 10, 2000). In this case, the new laws and the new Enforcement Decree have no transitional provisions that can be seen as continuously applying the relevant provisions of the former Act and the former Enforcement Decree with regard to the calculation and imposition of the liquidation amount, and therefore, the basis for the calculation and imposition of the liquidation amount in the disposition at the time of the disposition at this case after its enforcement is clear that it is Article 42 of the new Act and Articles 45 and 40 of the

However, according to the provisions of these new laws and the new Enforcement Decree, the price of the previous land in the redevelopment project regardless of the method of implementing the project, shall be calculated on the basis of the date of the public announcement of the implementation, and the price of the sale site shall be calculated by adding the redevelopment project cost of a specific item to the price of the previous land, and the price of the sale site shall be calculated by the method of adding the redevelopment project cost of a specific item to the price of the previous land, and the settlement money shall be calculated by the so-called price assessment method, which is the settlement money. However, as determined by the court below, the Ordinance of this case prescribes the so-called area assessment method, which is calculated by comparing the size of the previous land and the size

In light of the general reality that the increase in the value of land within the previous development project area in excess of the input cost was created as a result of the implementation of the redevelopment project, the area assessment method under the new law and new Enforcement Decree should be compared with the price assessment method under the new law and new Enforcement Decree. The area assessment method of land within the development project area should be first excluded from the pre-sale target by applying the reduction rate, thereby reducing the area of the site for sale to the landowners in the project area. In addition, if the price assessment method is based on the price assessment method, part of the cost of the redevelopment project added to the price of the site for sale should be excluded (see Article 45 (2) 5 of the previous Enforcement Decree). Therefore, in the case of an urban redevelopment project implemented by a local government as a project operator, the area assessment method under the new law and new Enforcement Decree does not violate the purpose of the provision of the urban redevelopment project, which includes the price assessment method, management plan and liquidation, and thus, the area assessment method does not violate the purpose of the previous en banc Decision 95Da196975, supra.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principle as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. The ground of appeal on the premise that the area evaluation method is allowed by the method of calculating the liquidation amount of redevelopment project cannot be accepted

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.

The final judgment of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (Presiding Justice) is delivered with Jin Jin-hun (Presiding Justice) and the written judgment of this court is delivered with the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.