When local governments (Seoul Special Metropolitan City) sell the city maintenance within the housing improvement redevelopment project zone including the planned area of urban planning road to the housing improvement redevelopment project cooperative, the purport of the special agreement that "if there is any increase or decrease in the area after the completion of the contract, the difference shall be settled even after the completion of the contract."

In light of the fact that a local government-owned land required for an urban planning road is unable to be sold or transferred for any purpose other than that determined by the relevant urban planning under Article 65(1) of the Urban Redevelopment Act, Article 82 and Article 2(1)1(b) of the Urban Planning Act, etc., it is reasonable to interpret that the special agreement that the local government (Seoul Special Metropolitan City) sells to the Housing Improvement Redevelopment Association the Si maintenance within the housing improvement redevelopment project zone, including the planned area of the urban planning road, and that “if there is an increase or decrease in the size of the area after the determination of the current road and the district boundary division, the difference shall be settled even after the conclusion of the contract.”

Article 105 of the Civil Act, Article 65(1) of the Urban Redevelopment Act, Articles 82 and 2(1)1(b) of the Urban Planning Act

Attorney Noh Jae-py, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant of the Housing Improvement and Development Development Partnership

Attorney Lee Dong-hoon, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 90Na24316 delivered on October 10, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

Defendant 1’s ground of appeal

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the Plaintiff’s total area of 145 square meters in Seoul Northern Zone was determined by the above 145 square meters, and the Plaintiff’s construction of the housing redevelopment association and the implementation of the project after obtaining authorization therefor on November 29, 1984. The Defendant’s construction of the above project area included in the 145 square meters in the 19-1 square Zone and the 27,341 square meters in the 204-1 square Zone and the 204-20-7 square Zone were determined to be within the 19-7-2 square Zone, and the remaining land area of the 19-7 Zone was determined to be located within the 19-7 Zone at the time of sale and purchase, and the remaining land area of the 15 Zone was determined to be within the 19-7 Zone of the Urban Planning Act, and the remaining area of the project area was determined to be 2,193,71,000 square meters in the 1-7 Zone.

The above measures by the court below are just and there are no errors of mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal principles as to the Urban Planning Act, which interpreted the contents of the agreement between the parties in conflict with the intent of the party involved, such as the theory of lawsuit.

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

2. According to the facts duly established by the court below, the land in this case was the land owned by the defendant that was excluded from the land subject to sale from the original point of view by agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant. Thus, since the plaintiff applied for registration of the plaintiff's apartment site after the execution of the above project, the plaintiff applied for registration in the name of the defendant for registration in the name of each of the land in this case, and the registration of preservation of ownership was made in the name of each of the defendant with respect to the land in this case as a package of convenience after the execution of the project in this case, it cannot be said that the land in this case belongs to the defendant through the form of donation. The decision of the court below to this purport is without merit

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.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)