Plaintiff 1 and one other (Attorney Kim Dong-dong, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul Special Metropolitan City and one other (Law Firm Civil Cow, Attorneys Kim Dong-dong et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

February 14, 2006

1. The plaintiffs' primary claims and the first preliminary claims are dismissed, respectively.

2. The Defendants shall be jointly and severally liable:

A. As to the amount of KRW 17,759,709 against Plaintiff 1 and each of the above amounts of KRW 7,103,500 against Plaintiff 2, Defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City from October 29, 2004; Defendant Gwanak-gu from October 28, 2004 to the date of full payment, 20% per annum from October 28, 2004 to the date of full payment;

B. From September 9, 2005 to September 9, 2005, the amount of money calculated by the ratio of KRW 852,165 per month to Plaintiff 1, and KRW 342,847 per month to Plaintiff 2 from September 1, 2005 to the date of the loss of ownership of each share in the land listed in the Plaintiffs’ separate sheet

sub-payment.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 4/5 are assessed against the plaintiffs, and the remainder are assessed against the defendants.

4. Paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed.

The primary purport of the claim: The defendants shall jointly and severally pay to the plaintiff 1 340,891,000 won, 136,349,000 won to the plaintiff 2, and 5% per annum from September 9, 2005 to the service date of a duplicate of the complaint of this case, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

Preliminary Claim 1: The Defendants jointly and severally pay to Plaintiff 1 279,276,893 won, 111,704,720 won to Plaintiff 2, and 5% per annum from September 9, 2003 to the service date of a duplicate of the complaint of this case, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

The claim of the second preliminary claim shall be as specified in paragraph (2) of this Article.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are without dispute between the parties, or evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, 2-1 through 3, evidence Nos. 3 through 7, evidence Nos. 8-1 through 6, evidence Nos. 9 through 11, evidence Nos. 12-1 through 3, evidence Nos. 13, evidence Nos. 15-1 through 3, evidence Nos. 16 through 18, respectively, 1-2, evidence Nos. 19-1 through 5, evidence Nos. 20 through 27, evidence Nos. 29 through 33, evidence Nos. 34-1, 34-2, evidence Nos. 35 through 39, Eul-2, evidence No. 3-1, evidence No. 4-2, evidence No. 4-1, Eul-2, or evidence No. 9-2, evidence No. 3-3, or evidence No. 5-1, Eul-1, 3-2, or evidence No.

A. The Seoul Special Metropolitan City, ○○○○-dong (hereinafter a parcel number 1 omitted), 3,360 square meters of forest land (hereinafter “the previous forest land in this case”) was purchased and owned by Nonparty 1, a father of the plaintiffs from around August 20, 1965. The area at the time of the initial purchase was 5,553 square meters (5 6 square meters) but was divided on August 10, 1973 (hereinafter a parcel number 2 omitted), but 1,983 square meters of forest land (2 square meters) on May 13, 1985 (hereinafter a parcel number 3 omitted) was divided into 210 square meters of forest land and completed each subdivision registration on February 3, 1986.

B. The previous forest was originally designated as the housing improvement redevelopment area under Article 2 of the Act on Temporary Measures for Housing Improvement Promotion (hereinafter “instant redevelopment area”) with the land of 172,300 square meters on December 1, 1973 located in the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Gwanak-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter the parcel number No. 4 omitted) as the housing improvement redevelopment redevelopment area (hereinafter “instant redevelopment area”). However, as the cost of the surrounding areas, including the previous forest, was designated as a neighboring park under Article 138 of the Public Notice of Construction Division on July 9, 1977, the previous forest was excluded from the redevelopment area under Article 155 of the Public Notice of Construction Division on April 26, 1982, part including the previous forest of this case was included in the redevelopment area. After that, the previous forest of this case, including the previous forest of this case, had been incorporated into the redevelopment area under the name of the owner of the building without permission, and had its function recovered from the neighboring neighboring land.

C. Accordingly, on July 22, 191, Nonparty 1 submitted a written consent to the redevelopment project on the previous forest of this case. However, on November 14, 1992, Nonparty 1 died, and Nonparty 2, 3, and 4, who are his wife and other children, jointly inherited the deceased, and as seen in the record of changes in the shares of the Plaintiffs regarding the previous forest of this case, the registration of ownership transfer of 4/26 of each of the Plaintiffs was completed on May 8, 1993.

D. Meanwhile, the previous forest land of this case was planned to be preserved as a park site only at the time of re-Incorporation into the redevelopment area of this case, but the purpose of its use was changed to a housing site, a road with a size of 438 square meters, a road with a size of 1,312 square meters, and a park site with a size of 1,610 square meters, among those under Article 193-232 of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Public Notice on August 11, 1993. In addition, the Defendants completed mutual consultation to take measures to restore the function as a park by organizing an unauthorized building, etc. at the time of the implementation of the redevelopment project.

E. Accordingly, on October 18, 1994, the defendant Gwanak-gu approved the establishment of the Housing Improvement Development Project in Dobongcheon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter lot number 4 omitted) with a total of 264,778m2 (264,581m2, June 12, 1997) 65m265m2, including the previous forest in this case, under the Gwanak-gu Public Notice No. 1994-36 of the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Improvement Project in Seocheoncheon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter referred to as the “instant redevelopment Project”), and the Housing Improvement Development Association in Seocheon-gu, 3 Housing Improvement Zone 3 (hereinafter referred to as the “Association of this case”) to maintain the permanent park in the preserved area, and to ensure that the urban landscape should not be undermined, such as the installation of soil and sand preventive facilities and planting trees, etc. (hereinafter referred to as the “Building Land Development Project” in this case’s 201m2).

The Seoul Metropolitan Government Guidelines for Housing Improvement and Redevelopment Project (Joint Redevelopment)

Article 6 (Method of Implementing Projects) A project implementation shall be implemented by a partnership with the whole district determined by the zone or redevelopment project plan: Provided, That the installation of public facilities may be implemented by classifying into the following methods depending on the types of facilities:

2. The association shall implement the disposal of obstacles to the relevant land for the installation of public facilities pursuant to the provisions of Articles 57 and 60 of the Urban Redevelopment Act, and the land compensation and the installation of public facilities shall be implemented by the head of the Gu;

F. Therefore, the instant association, while implementing the instant redevelopment project, installs a road with a width of 20 meters on a road of 1,620 square meters in a total of 438 square meters and 1,312 square meters and a total of 1,750 square meters and 1,620 square meters designated as a housing site in accordance with the said authorization conditions (including 130 square meters in a park site as much as the area of the initial road is reduced as the area of the road is included in the park site to the extent that the area of the road is reduced as the initial road due to the change of the design of the road), while installing a road of 20 meters in a width. On the other hand, 1,610 square meters and 130 square meters in a park site designated as a park site and a total of 1,740 square meters in a total of 1,740 square meters in a building without permission on the ground, installs a concrete retaining wall with a height of 7 to 10 meters and a road construction site is completed by planting.

G. Afterwards, the instant association: (a) prepared a management and disposal plan with respect to the size of 1,620 square meters of the previous forest of this case where roads, etc. were installed; (b) prepared a management and disposal plan with respect to the sale of an association apartment with the Plaintiffs, recognizing the Plaintiffs’ membership status; and (c) approved on June 12, 1997 by the Gwanak-gu Public Notice No. 1997-42; (b) did not include the size of 1,740 square meters of the previous forest of this case in the objects of sale or the payment of settlement money under the management and disposal plan pursuant to Article 6(2) of the Rules of this case; and (c) notified the completion authorization and construction completion completion of the instant redevelopment project under Article 203-88 of the Public Notice of Gwanak-gu of Seoul Special Metropolitan City on September 6, 2003; and (d) the said redevelopment project was completed by dissolution of the instant association on April 1, 2004.

H. Meanwhile, around July 3, 2003, the portion of the previous forest land of this case, the compensation for which was made as above, was divided into 1,620 square meters of forest land and 1,620 square meters of forest land and 1,620 square meters of forest land in Gwanak-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter referred to as "land number 5 omitted), and the remaining 1,74 million square meters of real estate as shown in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as "the land in this case"). The plaintiffs' shares in the land in this case were 4/26 of each of the original inheritance shares, after the same change as the changes in the shares of the plaintiffs in the separate sheet in 4/26 of the previous inheritance shares, there were 4.65/26 and 1.8505/26.

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. In the lawsuit of this case, as to the plaintiffs' claim for the payment of the purchase price for the land in this case, the defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City against the plaintiff's claim for damages or unjust enrichment, since the land in this case is a park site within the redevelopment area, the defendant Special Metropolitan City is not obligated to pay the purchase price, etc. with regard to the land in this case, separate from the fact that the association of this case, which is the person responsible for park installation of the redevelopment project in this case, or the defendant Gwanak-gu, who is the person responsible for supervision and authorization thereof, has a duty to pay the purchase price, etc. with regard to the land in this case. The defendant Special Metropolitan City did not have any ground to pay the purchase price, etc. for the land in this case, and the lawsuit of this case against the defendant Special Metropolitan City is unlawful. However, in the lawsuit for performance, the above ground alleged by the plaintiff as the person responsible for performance is merely a ground to be judged as the defendant's claim

B. Defendant Gwanak-gu asserts that the redevelopment project of this case is subject to the Urban Redevelopment Act applicable to public law, and compensation for losses related to the validity of management and disposal should also be deemed compensation for losses under public law. As such, the Plaintiffs’ primary claim for the payment of the amount equivalent to the purchase price of the land of this case cannot be asserted as a civil litigation or as a matter of civil litigation, and thus, the corresponding lawsuit should be dismissed in an unlawful manner. However, the Plaintiffs’ primary claim does not claim the exercise of rights under public law, such as the right to demand purchase or the right to compensation, but rather seek a payment of the amount equivalent to the purchase price of the land of this case with the Defendants, rather than claiming the exercise of rights under public law such as the right to demand purchase or the right to claim compensation, or the Defendants expressed their intent to purchase the land of this case. Thus, the purpose of the Plaintiffs’ primary claim is not a matter of dispute with administrative litigation. Therefore, Defendant Gwanak-

3. Judgment as to the main claim

The plaintiffs are the primary cause of claim that the land of this case was included in the redevelopment area of this case and completed the project. During that process, the land of this case was included in the land management and disposal plan and the substitute land was determined in the land of this case. In the case of the land of this case under Article 1993-232 of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Notification No. 1993-8 of August 11, 1993, the defendants agreed that "park land shall be constructed after rearrangement of building without permission, etc. at the time of the implementation of the project, and "measures for restoring functions as park" shall be taken. After the defendant Gwanak-gu stated Article 6 subparagraph 2 of the established rules at the time of the implementation of the redevelopment project of this case, the land of this case shall be retained, but the land of this case shall be maintained in accordance with the project plan, and the land of this case shall be removed and recovered from the function of the land of this case, and the compensation for the land of this case shall be jointly and severally made between the defendants or the defendants' share of this case 90.

In this case, among the previous forests, 438 square meters of housing lots, 1,312 square meters of housing lots, roads, and 1,610 square meters of the previous forests under the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Notice No. 1993-232 on August 11, 1993, as well as park sites, the contents of the project plan on the land in this case are changed to their use, and the Defendants completed consultation with the Defendants to dispose of the land within the redevelopment area of this case without permission buildings, etc. at the time of the implementation of the redevelopment project of this case and to recover its function as a park. Accordingly, the Defendants approved the implementation of the redevelopment project of this case and the establishment of the association of this case under the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Notice No. 1993-232 on August 11, 1993, and there is no reason to acknowledge the installation of the land within the redevelopment area of this case, and there is no reason to recognize the installation of the land within the redevelopment area or the installation of the public facilities in this case, with the content of this case.

4. Determination as to the first preliminary claim

The plaintiffs are preliminary causes of claim. Since the land of this case is included in the land record of the management and disposal plan in the process of the redevelopment project, the plaintiffs lose their ownership of the land of this case pursuant to Article 49 of the former Urban Redevelopment Act, and the defendants, the managing body of the park, did not make lawful compensation to the plaintiffs even though they acquired their ownership of the land of this case. In addition, even though the associations of this case lost their ownership of the land of this case, despite the illegal disposition that the associations of this case did not make sale or settlement payments, they did not take any specific measures, they jointly and severally seek compensation for damages equivalent to the purchase price of the land of this case against the defendants, by asserting that Gwanak-gu approved the management and disposal plan of this case and committed an unlawful act of neglecting the defendants without taking any specific measures.

In light of the overall purport of pleadings as to Gap evidence Nos. 10, 13, 19-1 through 5, Gap evidence No. 21, Gap evidence No. 27, Gap evidence No. 32, Gap evidence No. 34-1, 2, and Gap evidence No. 39, the association of this case can recognize the fact that the land of this case was sold in accordance with the management and disposition plan while implementing the redevelopment project of this case. However, since the old Urban Redevelopment Act (amended by Act No. 4381 of May 31, 1991), since it is difficult for the plaintiffs to acquire the land of this case to acquire the land of this case or the land of this case, it is difficult for them to acquire the land of this case by the new land substitution plan of this case under the former Land substitution Plan No. 200, Dec. 30, 200, the new land substitution plan of this case was abolished by the new land substitution plan of this case or the new land substitution plan of this case under Article 49 (5).

5. Determination as to the second preliminary claim

A. The Plaintiffs, as the primary cause of the second preliminary claim, filed a claim for damages equivalent to the rent for the portion of the instant land or a return of unjust enrichment with the Defendants, by asserting that the instant association, the managing body of the said park, occupied and used the instant land without a legitimate title, by creating the instant land as a park.

In light of the fact that the construction site of this case was located on July 9, 197 by the 138th public notice of the construction site of this case, and that the construction site of this case was located on the 3th public park construction site of this case, it was newly incorporated into the redevelopment area of this case including the previous forest land of this case by the 247 public notice of May 9, 190, and that the land of this case was used as a park site of this case under the 193-232 public notice of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, which was located on August 11, 1993, and that the construction site of this case was located on the 4th public park of this case. The construction site of this case was located on the 1st public park of this case and the construction site of this case was located on the 3th public park construction site of this case, it was difficult to establish a new park site of this case, which was located on the 1st public park of this case and its construction site of this case.

According to the above facts, the defendant Gwanak-gu is actually occupying and using the land of this case as the upper-do green park. On the other hand, according to Articles 4, 5, etc. of the former Urban Park Act (the former Urban Park Act was amended by Act No. 7476, Mar. 31, 2005; the same shall apply to Articles 16, 19, etc. of the Act on Urban Parks, Greenbelts, Etc.) and Article 4, 5, etc. of the former Urban Park Act (the same shall apply to the Special Metropolitan City Mayor and the Metropolitan City Mayor), and the head of Si/Gun having jurisdiction over the administrative district in which the urban park is located, has to build and manage the land of this case. The defendant Special Metropolitan City Mayor and the Metropolitan City Mayor shall establish and manage the land of this case as the whole, considering the following evidence 3-1, 2, Eul evidence 4-1, 5-1, 5-2, Eul evidence 6-1, 7-1, 2, 8-1, and 8.

Ultimately, the Defendants are jointly occupying and using the instant land without legitimate title. Accordingly, they are jointly obligated to compensate the Plaintiffs for damages equivalent to the rent for the instant land or return unjust enrichment.

B. Calculation of damages or unjust enrichment

The basic price of land for calculating the amount of damages equivalent to the rent for the land occupied and used by the State or a local government as a park or road, etc. or the amount of unjust enrichment is that the State or a local government, without considering the circumstances incorporated into a park or road, etc. in the absence of restrictions under the public law at the time of commencement of possession as a controlling entity, without considering the actual situation at the time of incorporation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Da56232, Apr. 27, 1999). It does not necessarily mean that the method of assessment prescribed in the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Acquisition of Land for Public Use and the Compensation for Damages, which applies to the case where a local government, etc. acquires or uses land necessary for a public project through consultation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da20918, Aug. 23,

In this case, the current status of the use of the land of this case was not clear at the time when the Ministry of Health and Welfare, No. 138 of July 9, 197, the Ministry of Construction, which was designated as the upper village park. However, the following circumstances are as follows: (a) the land of this case was included in the No. 13, No. 14-2, No. 14-3, and No. 1; (b) the land of this case was included in the redevelopment area under No. 470 of the Public Notice of Construction, No. 470 of December 1, 1973, and was designated as the upper village park; (c) the value of the land of this case was excluded from the redevelopment area under No. 155 of April 26, 1982; and (d) the land was actually demolished from the owner of the previous building without permission; and (d) the Defendants were also incorporated into the redevelopment area for the purpose of restoring the land of this case to 1905.7.4

Furthermore, under the premise that the above land can be used as a site: (i) 2.02.00 won for September 9, 200; (ii) 1,01,00 won for September 9; and (iii) 1,00,000 won for September 9, 200; and (iv) 3.0% interest rate for the real use of the land and the anticipated interest rate prescribed by the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes for September 9, 205; (v) 2.06.0 to 9.06.0,00 won for September 9, 200 to 208; and (v) 9.6.0,00 won for ownership for the land of this case from September 9 to September 2004 to September 9, 207; and (v) 209 to May 27, 2005; and (v) the Defendants’ annual rent for the land of this case from September 9, 2003 to September 204 to

C. Sub-decision

Therefore, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the plaintiff 1 the amount of KRW 17,759,709, the amount of KRW 7,103,50, and each of the above amounts to the plaintiff 2 from October 29, 2004 to the day of delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case; the defendant Gwanak-gu from October 28, 2004 to the day of full payment; and the damages for delay at the rate of KRW 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from October 28, 2004 to the day of full payment; and from September 9, 2005 to the day of loss of ownership of each share of the plaintiffs' land of this case or the day of termination of the defendants' possession of the land of this case to the plaintiff 1 and the amount of KRW 852,165 per month to the plaintiff 2, the amount of KRW 340,847 per month.

6. Conclusion

Thus, the primary and primary claims of the plaintiffs are dismissed as they are without merit, and the secondary and primary claims of the plaintiffs are justified, and they are decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment of List and Details of Changes in the plaintiffs' Share]

Judges Lee Do-subop (Presiding Judge)

A judge cannot sign or affix a seal by transfer in the future;