beta
Text
The judgment below
Of the plaintiffs, the part against the defendant against the defendant against the plaintiff N, Q, AT, AV, AZ, BA, BF, and B is reversed, and this part of the case is reversed.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).
1. As to the grounds of appeal by the plaintiff P, AJ, K, AL, AM, AO, AP, ASS, AS, AU, AY, AY, BB, BD, BE, BG, and BI
A. Prior to the amendment by Act No. 8665 of Oct. 17, 2007, the former Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects
c. Article 2(1) of the former Land Compensation Act
Article 78(1) of the Act provides that “A project operator shall be a person who loses his/her base of livelihood as a result of providing a residential building due to the implementation of public works (hereinafter “person subject to relocation measures”).
For the purpose of this Act, the relocation measures shall be established and implemented or the resettlement subsidies shall be paid as prescribed by Presidential Decree. Meanwhile, the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20722, Feb. 29, 2008) shall not apply.
A. The Enforcement Decree of the former Land Compensation Act (hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of the same Act”).
Article 40(3) of the Act provides that “The owner of a building who does not reside continuously from the date of public notice, etc. under the relevant Act and subordinate statutes for public works to the date of conclusion of the contract or the date of expropriation of the building (hereinafter “unresident owner”).
(1) Article 78(1) of the former Land Compensation Act and Article 40(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Land Compensation Act provide that a project operator shall be excluded from a person subject to relocation measures, but even in such cases, establishing and implementing criteria for expanding the scope of a person subject to relocation measures as prescribed by the said Act and subordinate statutes is permitted (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Du9819, Sept. 24, 2009). However, even if a project operator is included in a person subject to relocation measures beyond the scope of a person subject to relocation measures as prescribed by the said Act and Article 78(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Land Compensation Act, the relocation measures provided to a person who is not a person