Effect of authorization to implement a project under Article 12 of the Urban Redevelopment Act

An authorization to implement a project under Article 12 of the Urban Redevelopment Act has the nature of an administrative disposition that establishes a specific right of expropriation under the condition that it goes through a certain procedure thereafter, and the scope of the object to be expropriated has been determined by obtaining the authorization to implement the project and the effect of a right under public law that can oppose the present and future right holder with respect to the object. Therefore, without dispute over the defect at the stage of the authorization to implement a project, the authorization to implement a project is unreasonable by the lack of dispute over the disposition, unless the authorization to implement the project exceeds the period of litigation.

Article 12 of the Urban Redevelopment Act

Supreme Court Decision 87Nu395 Decided September 8, 1987, Supreme Court Decision 87Nu6 Decided December 27, 1988

Attorney Park Sung-sung et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

B. Head of the District Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 86Gu1346 delivered on June 22, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 12 of the Urban Redevelopment Act provides that the project implementation authorization under Article 12 of the Urban Redevelopment Act has the nature of administrative disposition that establishes a specific expropriation right under the condition that it goes through a certain procedure, and the scope of the object to be expropriated is determined by the project implementation authorization, and it shall take effect as a kind of public right that can oppose the present and future right holder on the object. Thus, the above project implementation authorization at the stage of the project implementation authorization, without dispute over the defect, and at the stage of the litigation period has already lapsed, unless the above authorization disposition is invalid as a matter of course, it shall not be contested against the illegality by the power of dispute over the disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Nu395, Sept. 8, 197; Supreme Court Decision 87Nu6, Dec. 27, 198). According to the records, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor does not recognize that the authorization under Article 12 of the above Act was invalid and that the disposition of the authorization is invalid as a matter of course.

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 Jong-soo (Presiding Justice) Lee Chang-soo Kim Jong-won