2016 Consolidated 100965 Revocation of a public announcement of project approval

1

2. C

3. D;

December 1, 2016

January 19, 2017

1. On February 5, 2016, the Defendant’s public announcement of project approval for the restoration of the soil of Seoul E and its improvement project under the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport Notice No. 2016-39 is revoked.

2. Of the costs of the lawsuit, the Defendant Intervenor shall bear the costs of the intervention, and the remainder shall be borne by the Defendant.

The order is as set forth in the text.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 1, 2013, the Plaintiff was established by dividing the business of manufacturing and selling framed, concrete, asphalts, etc. from Sam-gu Co., Ltd. (formerly changed: Sam-gu Co., Ltd.) on a October 1, 2013, and is performing the business after being transferred all rights to the factory and business facilities, etc. in Songpa-gu Seoul, Songpa-gu, Seoul (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff” without distinguishing between the Plaintiff and the stock company). The Plaintiff owned the land No. 1-28 of the [Attachment 1] table in Songpa-gu, Seoul, [Attachment 1] column of the “former land status” column (after the merger, the said land is in the same state as stated in the “former land No. Y.” column), and the above land is established from 1-7 years to 8 years, and the site of this case is at issue) on the above land.

(b) operate this section.

B. On January 21, 1963, the Seoul Songpa-gu I, the surrounding the instant factory site, discovered a soil axis presumed to be the early white period, and on January 21, 1963, the State-designated private cultural heritage No. 11 Seoul Etong (former title: Gwangju Pultopy; hereinafter referred to as “Pultopy”) was designated as the State-designated private cultural heritage No. 11.

C. The Defendant Intervenor B (hereinafter “ Intervenor B”) additionally designated part of the site of this case on several occasions from July 4, 2003 to February 5, 2005 pursuant to Article 6 of the former Cultural Heritage Protection Act (amended by Act No. 7365 of January 27, 2005).

D. On November 11, 2003, the head of Songpa-gu Office for Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor (hereinafter “head of Songpa-gu Office”) announced the use of the instant factory site on the basis of Article 20 of the former Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (amended by Act No. 6656, Feb. 4, 2002; hereinafter “former Land Act”) while promoting the public works under the name of “the project for restoring and improving the Gwangju Pungriririririri (11)’s private State-designated cultural heritage” (hereinafter “the project for restoring Gwangju Pungririri”) as the planned project site. The Minister of Construction and Transportation (the name of the Defendant prior to the change) announced the use of the instant factory site on December 29, 203 as the land subject to the approval of the project under Article 20 of the former Act.

E. In December 2003, the plaintiff and the intervenor head of Songpa-gu carried out the procedure for acquiring consultation on the factory site of this case from around December 2003 to around January 201, and as a result, C (hereinafter referred to as "participating C") who is the assistant witness to the defendant as a result of the consultation, had completed the registration of ownership transfer by consultation on the land in the column of "the present status of land" as of "the present status of compensation" during the factory site of this case from around December 2003 to January 2014 (hereinafter referred to as the above land owned by the intervenor C).

F. Meanwhile, the head of Songpa-gu Office of the Intervenor entered into a loan contract with the Plaintiff or granted permission for use to the Plaintiff, with C’s delegation from January 2004, in order to ensure that the Plaintiff continues to operate the instant factory in the process of acquiring the instant factory site on a yearly basis by the Intervenor C, a part of the instant factory site as above.

G. On November 1, 2015, the intervenor head of Songpa-gu did not hold an agreement on the remaining lands owned by the plaintiff among the factory site of this case. On November 1, 2015, the intervenor head of Songpa-gu announced the perusal of the application for the approval of the project of the plaintiff's factory building and obstacles on the land of this case (hereinafter referred to as "land subject to expropriation") and the land of this case to be expropriated only on the plaintiff's factory building and obstacles on the land of this case. The plaintiff submitted an opinion to the intervenor head of Songpa-gu that the withdrawal of the application for the approval of the project is against the principle of significant and proportionality.

H. On February 5, 2016, the Defendant issued a public announcement of the instant project approval (hereinafter referred to as “public announcement of the instant project approval”) with respect to the instant project that the Intervenor’s project implementer is the head of Songpa-gu as indicated in the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport Notice No. 2016-39 [Attachment 3] on February 5, 2016, as the Intervenor’s request for project approval by the head of Songpa-gu

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 9 through 13

each entry, the whole purport of the pleading, including, but not limited to, each entry;

2. Whether the project approval of this project is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The instant public announcement of project approval is unlawful since it does not meet the lawful requirements under Article 83(1) of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act in terms of the subject of expropriation, target of expropriation, purpose of expropriation, necessity of expropriation, legality of procedures for re-designation of culture, etc. as follows.

A) In relation to the project implementation entity, only the intervenor, who is the JB, is qualified as the project implementer B, and therefore, only the intervenor B may be the only intervenor who implements public works related to Pungtopy, which is State-designated cultural heritage. Thus, the intervenor head of Songpa-gu cannot be the project implementer of the instant project, which is State-designated cultural heritage expropriation project. Thus, the intervenor head of Songpa-gu cannot be the project implementer of the instant project, which is State-designated cultural heritage expropriation

B) In relation to the object of expropriation, there is no notification about the Pungstong Sungstong and the fact of existence is not revealed, and the site subject to the project in this case is merely the natural river area outside of the nature, and even if there is no cultural heritage subject to the project in this case, it is impossible to maintain the original form, and there is no possibility of being eligible for the project as cultural heritage subject to the project.

C) In relation to the purpose of expropriation, the instant project is merely for the excavation of buried cultural heritage and there is no preservation and management purpose for the maintenance of the original form of cultural heritage. Therefore, this cannot be a public project under the Cultural Re-Protection Act.

D) With respect to the necessity of the instant project, the restoration of a book without any academic research or historical historical historical research cannot be a business that maintains the authenticity and value of cultural heritage, and it is difficult to see that there exists a need for the instant project because it constitutes excessive restoration to restore the strong floor or the lost part of the sexual wall in the white era.

2) The instant public project approval is unlawful as it does not meet the lawful requirements for recognition of public works under the Land Compensation Act in the following respect:

A) The instant public announcement of project approval is different from the project operator and the subject of acquisition through consultation.

A project operator, who is in violation of the principle that the public works should be performed by the project operator based on the project operator, is inconsistent with the formal project operator (the head of Songpa-gu Office of Intervenor C or Intervenor B) and the actual project operator and the subject of land acquisition (the head of Intervenor C or Intervenor B), and the head of Songpa-gu Office, the project operator, has no business intent and ability in relation to the procurement of business funds.

B) Considering the project cost, soil surrounding environment, and remaining conditions of cultural properties that will be required for the instant project, there is no possibility of early realization of the project, and there is no need for early completion of the project for genetic excavation and investigation buried underground in the absence of academic research and proof.

C) The project of this case has the nature of “the land plan for the project execution area corresponding to the project execution area, where the project of this case itself is interpreted in a multi-level manner, and the accurate project contents are not known, and there is no site plan for the project execution area corresponding to the project contents,” and it has the nature of “the Plaintiff’s factory site is limited to the project object of this case.” This is a de facto project approval method conducted for the purpose of cutting a specific landowner.

D) The head of Songpa-gu and the Intervenor C carried out compensation in a manner that annually acquired land on the Plaintiff’s factory site by consultation and imposes rents on the land subject to compensation due to the lack of project costs. This is against the principle of lump sum compensation and advance compensation.

E) The instant public announcement of project approval constitutes deviation and abuse of discretionary power against the principle of proportionality, as the comparative balancing between the public interest that can be achieved by the project and the private interest infringed upon is remarkably imbalanced.

(b) Related statutes;

[Attachment 4] The entry is as shown in [Attachment 4].]

(c) Facts of recognition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or acknowledged in full view of Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 12 and the purport of all arguments.

1) At the time of the first private designation on January 1, 1963, Pungsung was designated as cultural heritage in only the area with a history range, and the inside was excluded from the determination of a historical site. Since the downtown development in the 1970s, the sexual range inside the center was changed into a large city. Since 1997, as relics, such as earth and sand were discovered in the planned site for the construction of an apartment in the eporascal apartment located in the eposcal apartment, the land in the eposcalscalscalsicsicsicsicsicsicsicsicsicsicsicsicsicsicsicsicsicsicsicsicsicsicsicsicsicsicsicsicsicsicsicsicsicsicsicsicsicsicsicsicsicsicscirsicsicsicsicsicsicsicsicsicsicsicsicsics

2) Since 200, the Intervenor B made an additional designation of historic sites on the land in the neighboring areas of the Pungtopy over several times. On October 2002, the Intervenor divided the Pungtoan area into the estimation section of the earth wall, the earth and sand internal presumption area, the earth and sand outside and the presumption area. On April 6, 2009, the Intervenor B divided the Pungtopo into six zones as follows.

A person shall be appointed.

3) The acquisition of land in a scenic area by the Intervenor C has been made by means of purchasing the relevant land by the Intervenor C after designating the land owner who wishes to sell the land in the order of request for purchase in the order of request for purchase and consulting on the amount of compensation with the Administrator of Songpa-gu Office of Songpa-gu. The Intervenor: (a) the size of the land in the compensation atmosphere in the Class II and the Class III is about 109,000 square meters; and (b) the size of the budget in the case of land compensation by designating the entire area of the Pungsto II and III as cultural properties (50 billion won per annum as of 2014); (c) around 40 years for the compensation period; and (d) more than 50 years for the excavation and investigation to clarify the definite nature of Pungsto after the completion of the compensation.

4) On January 8, 2015, the Intervenor B determined that it is necessary to reorganize the basic direction for the preservation, maintenance, and improvement of the climate according to the above problems, and subsequently, on January 8, 2015, the Intervenor transferred to the core area (II regions) only by converting the existing policy instruments, but the other region announced the “basic plan for the preservation, management, and utilization of the climate, which is mainly focused on the existence of cultural heritage and residents,” as of January 10, 2015. Accordingly, the Intervenor opened a press conference and announced it as a result of the amendment and implementation of the “basic plan for the preservation, management, and utilization of the climate,” which is called the “basic plan for the conservation, management, and utilization of the climate,” which is focused on the existence of cultural heritage and residents. Accordingly, the Intervenor C has to prepare special measures to make early compensation by completing the purchase of land within three to five years.

5) According to the Intervenor B’s action plan for the discovery and investigation of the storm storm, the 2nd 10 10 year (2015 to 2024) plan for the storm storming is to find out the historical identity of the storming, and to find out the historical identity of the storming. The specific investigation plan is to find out and investigate the male wall section from 2015 to 2016 (Presumption) for the male wall section for which the land expropriation has been completed and the sexual wall’s basic facilities for the restoration of the original form of the storming wall. From 2017 to 2020, it is to find out the Plaintiff’s public book and find out the history of the winding wall construction and to secure the existence of the existing implementation plan for the future improvement of the storming village area.

6) According to the report materials by the Intervenor C on December 23, 2015, the main contents of the "comprehensive plan to register the Pungtop early compensation and world heritage" promoted by the Intervenor C are ① early compensation for guaranteeing the property rights of residents, ② planning, excavation and maintenance for the recovery of historicality, ③ promoting the registration of the UNESCO World Heritage in the Hansung Islands 2020, ④ building and utilizing private governance with related agencies, experts, citizens, etc.

(d) Determination:

1) Requirements for legitimate recognition of public works

A) The project approval under the provisions of related Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Land Compensation Act, etc., has the nature of administrative disposition as a formative act by which the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport establishes a right to expropriate within a certain period on the condition that the project operator under a public-service project should go through a certain procedure, and the scope of the object to be expropriated has been determined by the reason that it is a project, and the holder of the right to expropriate has the effect as a right under public law, which is subject to the object

Key. (See Supreme Court Decision 95Nu4889 delivered on December 5, 1995, etc.), even if a public works recognition institution falls under a project capable of expropriation or use of land, etc. in order to implement a project under the Land Compensation Act, whether a project has public interest or public interest, even if there is public interest, the public interest and private interest of the persons related to the project approval as to the contents and method of the project should be compared and compared to the public interest and private interest, and the comparison and bridge must be consistent with the principle of proportionality. In addition, it is not possible to reduce the granting of the right to expropriate another person’s property to a person who has no intent or ability to realize the public interest by executing the relevant public works, so it should be deemed that the project operator has the capacity to perform the relevant public works and ability to perform the relevant public works. It is also deemed that the expropriation of the project still violates the fundamental purpose of Article 23 of the Constitution, which is, the public interest or private interest.

B) Furthermore, public expropriation is a compulsory acquisition of another person’s specific property right for a public project by law. As such, there is a need for the public project. As to whether it is necessary, the existence of the public interest, which is to justify the infringement of the other party’s property right due to expropriation, should be proved as a result of the comparison of both interests. The burden of proof is on the project implementer (Supreme Court Decision 2003Du7507 Decided November 10, 2005).

In light of the above legal principles, a business subject to the definition, which is a formative administrative act of establishing the right to expropriate, must meet the provisions related to the Public Works Act, and be able to carry out factual and legal feasibility. The legitimate comparison and bridge between the public interest to accommodate the public and the profits related to the business should be premised.

C) Meanwhile, Article 83(1) of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act provides that “The head of B or the head of a local government may expropriate or use land, buildings, crops, etc. located within designated cultural heritage or its protection zone pursuant to the Land Compensation Act, if necessary for the preservation and management of cultural heritage.” Article 3 of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act provides that “The basic principle of the preservation, management, and utilization of cultural heritage is to maintain its original form.” In light of the provisions of Article 83(1) of the aforementioned Cultural Heritage Protection Act, in order to be different from a public project, the following should be supported by academic historical evidence, etc.: (a) where the cultural heritage is existing or at least the cultural heritage is existing; and (b) it is possible to maintain its original form in the future. If the existence or absence of a cultural heritage subject to a public project project is unclear, public project cannot be recognized only for the preservation and management of the cultural heritage; and (c) in this case, it is not probable that the purpose of the expropriation of the cultural heritage does not meet the requirements of land expropriation under the Cultural Heritage Protection Act.

D) Under below, based on the above legal principles, we examine whether the notice of the project approval of this case satisfies the eligibility for the public interest of the business, whether the public interest of the business is necessary, whether the public interest of the business is between the public interest and the private interest, and whether the public interest and the private interest have been properly compared and bridgeed.

2) Whether cultural heritage subject to project implementation following the public announcement of project approval of this case is eligible for public works

According to the following circumstances, the public announcement of this case’s public announcement of expropriation of the site subject to expropriation is not likely to exist in the site subject to expropriation according to the public announcement of this case’s public announcement of this case’s public announcement of this case’s public announcement of this case’s public announcement of this case’s public announcement of this case’s public announcement of this case’s public announcement of this case’s public announcement of this case’s public announcement of this case’s public announcement of this case’s public announcement of this case’s public announcement of this case’s public announcement of this case’s public announcement of this case’s public announcement of this case’s public announcement of this case’s public announcement of this case’s public announcement of this case’s public announcement of this case’s public announcement

A) According to the public announcement of project approval of this case, the project area of the Plaintiff’s factory site is larger than the Plaintiff’s site. For this reason, the Defendant asserts that the instant site subject to expropriation is “area requiring the restoration and maintenance of a sexual wall after digging out as a “Scenic wall restoration zone.” However, the implementation area of the private project of this case does not fall under the core area of the entire scenic area, but it does not appear in the notice map or the current satellite photograph, and the existence itself does not have been increased accordingly. Furthermore, in the excavation and investigation report on the part of the Seoul Songpa-gu0 land adjacent to the south of the instant site subject to expropriation of this case, it is highly probable that the remaining area of the wall of this case was 1,000,0000,0000 square meters in total and 2,0000,0000 square meters in total and 3,0000 square meters in size, and it is not likely that the remaining area of the wall would remain 5,000 square meters in total.

B) According to the result of the excavation up to now, the depth of soil existing in the underground is about 3 meters, and the Plaintiff newly constructed a factory in the instant site subject to confinement and installed a file (clater) with a tight depth of 10 meters underground while building a factory in the instant site subject to confinement, but did not find any material distribution or remainder at the time.

C) In 202, the Plaintiff intended to construct a saptory on the south side of the instant factory site immediately adjacent to the instant factory site. However, according to the excavation survey published on December 2005 [Satopy V - Twit industry site excavation report] (hereinafter “the instant report”), the Plaintiff’s excavation survey was conducted on the Plaintiff’s land, including the construction site, for which heavy oil was discovered and the new construction site was suspended from 2002 to 2003 (hereinafter “the excavation survey of this case”). The excavation survey of this case mainly aims at identifying whether there was a harmful person to the outside of the south wall of the satoma, and as a result of the excavation investigation of this case, the National Cultural Heritage Research Institute published on December 2, 2005 [Satopy V - Talter industry site excavation report] (hereinafter “the instant report”).

As a result of the construction and investigation of the above 4 survey pits, construction wastes were buried for up to 3 to 4 meters below the surface of the earth, and in the 4 survey pits, there was no special trace of white sand and the white soil was recovered, but only the open soil and gravel floors were confirmed due to river or river inundation, but only 7.5m below the surface of the earth (round 11m in the tidal wave) from 7.5m below the surface of the earth were confirmed, and since the 000, the black soil story containing strong stones came close to the new wall than now, and the new soil was found to have been stored near the existing 3rd and the existing 3rd-story soil was found to have been stored near the new 3rd-story and the existing 3rd-story soil was found to have been found to have been located near the previous 3rd-story and the existing 3rd-story soil was found to have been found to have been located.

B) In comparison with the stopopic earth wall, it seems reasonable to have served as the 'natural sediment layer' rather than the stophered floor, such as the stopher, and therefore, it is reasonable to view that the stophere floor including river stones and sand floor served as the lower part of the river that had passed at the time, and as the lower part of the river that had passed at the time. Furthermore, in the above report, it is not possible to find the existence of the stoprising wall at the time because the stoprising wall abutting on the 3th investigation site does not remain, and it is concluded that the stoprising volume of the horizontal stopris and the boundary floor cannot be ruled out to have served as the basis of the wall.

Therefore, even if the inner wall of the excavation of the excavation site where the third investigation is located exists exists, in full view of the excavation and investigation of the land of Songpa-gu Seoul, Songpa-gu, Seoul, which is adjacent to the south of the building site subject to accommodation as above, the area subject to accommodation of this case is presumed to have been naturally flowing a river from the outside of the sex wall of the storm, and it is merely presumed that the south of the excavation site where the third investigation is located is adjacent to the sex wall of the wind, but it is merely impossible to find out whether there is a sex wall (in fact, the upper part of the expropriation site of this case was a flood area that is habitually past the 1970s where the plaintiff's factory was located).

D) On September 2007, the National Institute of Cultural Heritage published “Saeongdo 500 Pungdo 500,” in the part of “4. Sarido’s survey results and “Sarido’s survey results” (2002~2003), i.e., Sarido 500, written as follows, on the existence and function of Sarido’s wall.

A person shall be appointed.

The above data which are positively assessed on the necessity and prospects for the restoration of scenicity;

A person shall be appointed.

Even according to the above contents of the data which are positively assessed on the necessity and prospects of the restoration of the storm and flood, there was no clear conclusion as to whether the plastic wall of the storm and flood actually existed through the excavation investigation of this case, and whether the part was the one adjacent to the bank, or whether it was the one adjacent to the bank, and the additional excavation investigation is needed.

E) According to the instant report, “this case’s report does not leave the inner wall of the area adjacent to the investigation area, and the inner wall of the area where trees were planted as dry field is highly likely to be restored to the core shape of the soil, and it is highly likely that the remaining wall remaining with the current stormity will be restored to the original form, even if it is described as "this case’s report, it is difficult to say that there is a high possibility that there exists a new installation of an additional wall with the inner wall of this case’s inner and external white culture with the outer wall of the new land of this case’s new land of new land of new land of new land of new land of new land of new land of new land of new land of new land of new land of new land of new land of new land of new land of new land of new land of new land of new land of new land of new land of new land of new land of new land of new land of new land of new land of new land of new land of new land of new land of new land of new land of new land of new land of new land of new land of new land of new land of new land of new land of new land of new land of new land of new land of new land of new land of new land.

F) The Intervenor B, established on January 1, 2016, stated that “(State) the content of the sexual wall restoration plan is as follows: (i) the restoration of the sexual wall site for the Pungs factory industry; and (ii) the plan formulated on January 1, 2016.

Even based on the contents of the instant report as seen earlier, the instant land subject to expropriation is likely to be a river area located adjacent to a natural damaged person or a bank installation. The Intervenor’s plan for the restoration of the sexual wall presented by the Intervenor B as above does not appear to be a bank facility adjacent to a natural damaged person or a river area. Even though the instant land subject to expropriation was naturally damaged as the Defendant and the Intervenor asserted, it is necessary to artificially restore the extinguished natural damaged person due to natural action, such as flood, etc.

A person shall be appointed.

In light of the content of the instant public announcement of project approval and the Intervenor B’s plan to restore a sexual wall, etc., it is questionable whether the instant project constitutes “maintenance of the original form of cultural heritage” and it is nothing more than confirming the remaining condition of the district by accepting the instant site subject to expropriation, which does not fall under the core area where the restoration of the presumed stimulation of the wind, and investigating the harm of the stimulious wall that appears to have already been lost, and confirming the existence of the stimulation and embankment facilities. Furthermore, as long as there is no doubt as to whether the Defendant and the Intervenor alleged that they want to return cultural heritage exists, and it is possible to restore it in the form of maintaining the original form, the instant project lacks the public interest, such as the preservation of cultural heritage and the stimulation.

3) Whether the instant project is necessary

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by Gap’s evidence Nos. 14, 17, 2029, 30, 36, 37, 38, and Eul’s evidence Nos. 2-2, 5, and 9-2, the notice of the recognition of the business of this case was attributable to the purpose of excavating buried cultural heritage and creating an artificial cultural environment rather than for preserving and managing the original form of cultural heritage, and thus, the said notice of the approval of the business of this case is attributable to the purpose of excavating buried cultural heritage rather than for preserving and managing the original form of cultural heritage, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the necessity of the business is recognized.

A) The Guidelines for the Establishment and Implementation of Private Maintenance Plan, which is an established rule of the Cultural Heritage Administration, provides for the following basic principles, etc. of the establishment of a schedule:

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

The established rules of the Cultural Heritage Administration can be seen as embodying the principle of expropriation for the preservation and management of cultural heritage. As above, ① public works for the preservation and management of cultural heritage are projects with focus on the preservation of the original form of cultural heritage; ② public works for the preservation and management of cultural heritage; ② public works for the maintenance of the authenticity and value of cultural heritage; ③ public works for the maintenance of the authenticness and value of cultural heritage through academic research and evidence; ④ public works for the undiscreet excessive restoration; ④ public works for the rational harmony between the characteristics and surroundings of cultural heritage; ④ public works for the preservation and management of cultural heritage so that existing relics can no longer be modified or damaged; ② public works for the preservation and management of cultural heritage; ② public works for the preservation and management of cultural heritage should be faithfully repaired, repaired, ③ public works for the restoration by drilling without academic research and evidence.

B) Meanwhile, under Article 19 of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act, the Intervenor B may file an application for the registration of outstanding domestic cultural heritage with UNESCO as a world heritage, and the following requirements are prescribed as to the authenticity of the world heritage stipulated in the “Regulations for the Application for the Registration of World Heritage in the UNESCO established by the Cultural Heritage Administration”:

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

As above, UNESCO tax in relation to the requirements for the authenticity of cultural heritage registered as a world heritage;

A person shall be appointed.

In relation to the requirements for the authenticity of cultural properties registered as world heritage registration, the regulations on the application for the registration of UNESCO's world heritage registration provide that reconstruction of historical historical structures, etc. is justified only in exceptional cases, and reconstruction is only permissible only when it is based on complete and detailed records.

C) As seen earlier, even though the Defendant and the Intervenor did not remain in the vicinity of the land adjacent to the instant project implementation, they presumed the existence and location of the plastic wall by means of excavation investigation report or academic thesis. In addition, if only a single plastic wall remains, it is necessary to faithfully repair and maintain only the remaining part or the part that remains in danger of collapse in its original form, but the Defendant and the Intervenor alleged that they would restore the plastic wall to the site subject to expropriation without clearly verifying it through scientific research and evidence. However, the aforementioned restoration based on the trend that is not supported by historical records or academic historical historical evidence, goes against the basic principles of the restoration of cultural heritage, rather, is contrary to the inherent nature of the existing apartment site and its surrounding environment, and is presumed to have been destroyed and damaged as a genuine landscape of the existing apartment site and its surrounding environment, and thus, it is assumed that the existing area of the site subject to expropriation had been built in the urban area, other than the existing apartment site and its surrounding area.

D) Although the Defendant and intervenors asserted to the effect that cultural heritage repair under the Cultural Heritage Protection Act includes the category of excavation and inspection of cultural heritage, Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Act on the Repair, etc. of Cultural Heritage (hereinafter “Cultural Heritage”) clearly distinguish the repair, restoration, maintenance, and prevention of damage to cultural heritage from the category of cultural heritage repair under any of the following. The Defendant and intervenors clearly distinguish the concept of the preservation of the original state through the restoration and maintenance of cultural heritage and the excavation of cultural heritage from the concept of the excavation and inspection of cultural heritage. The Defendant and intervenors agree on the excavation and inspection of cultural heritage from the site of this case that the cultural heritage was presumed to have existed, if there remains a trace of the above excavation and inspection of cultural heritage, it constitutes “type of cultural heritage buried in the land,” and if there is no need for consultation on the excavation and inspection of cultural heritage from the category of buried cultural heritage under the Act on the Protection and Inspection of Cultural Heritage, there is no need for consultation on the excavation and inspection of cultural heritage in the area under the jurisdiction of the State.

As above, the Act on the Preservation of Buried Cultural Properties regulates the excavation procedures for the inspection of cultural properties in the case of buried cultural properties buried in the land or underwater, and the State directly provides for compensation for losses in the event of excavation and inspection. Meanwhile, the Act does not provide for the expropriation of land for the purpose of “the excavation and inspection of buried cultural properties” but provides that the State or local governments may purchase the relevant land in case where the whole execution or completion of the development project is impossible due to measures for the preservation of excavated cultural properties (Article 26 of the Act on the Preservation of Buried Cultural Properties). In accordance with the provisions of the Act on the Preservation of Buried Cultural Properties, (i) the excavation and inspection procedure of buried cultural properties, (ii) the procedure for the inspection of buried cultural properties, and (iii) the repair, restoration, and maintenance of buried cultural properties.

It is the Cultural Heritage Protection Act to regulate the process of the above three stages. However, it is difficult to determine that a project that can expropriate or use land pursuant to the Land Compensation Act does not comply with the provisions of Article 4 of the Public Works Act or the Acts prescribed in attached Table (Article 4 subparag. 8) and the attached Table only provides for the preservation and management of cultural heritage pursuant to the Cultural Heritage Protection Act. As such, the project related to the excavation of buried cultural heritage pursuant to the Burial Culture Republic Act does not constitute a project that can expropriate or use the land under the Land Compensation Act because it is not necessary to excavate the area of the buried cultural heritage pursuant to the Cultural Heritage Protection Act. Therefore, it is not reasonable to recognize the existence or absence of the right to expropriate the area of the buried cultural heritage pursuant to Article 83 of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act as a result of the search and inspection of the buried cultural heritage without any specific need for the excavation of the area of the buried cultural heritage. Therefore, it is not reasonable to recognize the existence or absence of the right to expropriate the land under the Cultural Heritage Protection Act for the purpose of the excavation of the buried Cultural Heritage Act.

E) Examining the progress and contents of the instant project up to the present time, the instant private business cannot be denied the fact that the Plaintiff purchased and inspected the land rather than for the preservation and management purpose of cultural property to maintain its original form, and is proceeding in the direction of improving the local environment or creating an artificial cultural environment. Following the contents of the “Basic Plan for the Preservation, Management, and Utilization of Sultory 11 published by the Intervenor on April 2009” as follows: (a) in the case of the I zone, the acquired land was designated as a zone in need of restoration; (b) in the case of the land purchased as a zone in the English village and office of Seoul Metropolitan City; or (c) in the case of the land used as a zone in need of restoration for the emotional restoration zone, the soil management office, the bicycle rental office, or the land used as a parking lot, public land, school, etc. other than the historical and abstract value of the Intervenor’s possession of the land, which is an important part of its historical or abstract value.

(for inserting a label, a margin for inserting

In addition, considering the content of the measures for the preservation of the Intervenor B, the content of the measures for the maintenance and restoration of cultural heritage is as follows:

A person shall be appointed.

A preservation plan is formulated, such as the establishment of the Seongbuk Outdoor Museum, the creation of the Pungtopy Outdoor Museum, the utilization as infrastructure for the Pungtopy tourism (such as parking lots) and the use as the Pungtototype exhibition hall or the general public for the purpose of maintaining the original form of cultural heritage. This is merely the establishment of artificial structures, such as museums or exhibition halls, with a fungtotype, rather than for preserving and restoring the original form of cultural heritage.

(for inserting a label, a margin for inserting

A person shall be appointed.

F) On the other hand, the acquisition of land by an intervenor and private designation related to the restoration of land and the acquisition of land by agreement has been made in the way that the intervenor would make a private additional designation and compensation in the order of applicants for the land first, and the acquisition by agreement for public works has been made at the request of the landowner without any specific guidelines on the boundary of the land to be acquired through consultation. Furthermore, the intervenor shows that there is no criteria for the selection of the land for public works and specific project implementation plans for the land to be acquired in advance. In addition, it is difficult for the intervenor to find out the land and find out the land in the direction of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City's conservation, management, and utilization of the land as an additional compensation in accordance with the principle of compensation for application, and there is no need for the residents to improve the existing construction and maintenance of the land in the direction of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City's conservation and maintenance of the land due to the discovery of the land necessary for the construction of the new land in the direction of the new urban development project, and there is no need for the residents to improve the existing construction and maintenance of the land.

G) In addition, according to the news report C on December 23, 2015, the intervenor C explained not only the existing method of purchasing and searching for the reconstruction project, etc. but also the plan to discover and restore the core relics in the plan. "The core relics" as referred to in the above plan is the two - three zones adjacent to the Gyeong party district adjacent to the Gyeong party and being used as a park after the expropriation and excavation.

The land subject to expropriation of this case is classified into one district, "I-1 district," but is in the same site.

A person shall be appointed.

The plaintiff's ready-mixed factories and residential facilities are concentrated, but there is no particular cultural heritage trace, and eventually, the restoration and improvement project of plastic walls, as part of the restoration and improvement project of scenic landscapes, will restore the scenic wall that is not clearly revealed to exist in the past, by consultation or forced expropriation of land and buildings located in the urban area and not only in the past, but also in the past. This project is a distance from the restoration and improvement project to maintain the original form of cultural heritage stipulated by the Cultural Heritage Management Act.

h) According to the project plan, which was submitted by the Administrator of Songpa-gu to the Defendant, that the Intervenor would have had a high value of 00 billion won or less for the construction work, and that the cost of the instant project would have been KRW 14 billion for the construction of the site to be expropriated and the construction of the facilities and the construction of the new site to be expropriated, and that the cost of the instant project would have been KRW 70.5 billion for the construction of the new site to be expropriated to the extent that it would not have a high value of 00 billion for the construction of the new site to be expropriated. In light of the above budget size of Songpa-gu, it appears that the Intervenor would not have a high financial capacity to execute the instant project by itself for the construction of the new site to be filled up to KRW 10 billion for the construction of the new site to be filled up to KRW 5 billion for the construction of the new site to be filled up to KRW 200,000,000,000 for the construction of the new site to be filled up to KRW 16.

I) The instant public notice of project approval sets a project implementation zone according to the Plaintiff’s E-U.S. factory site boundary. However, it is difficult to accept that the boundary line of the implementation zone of the rearrangement project is transferred according to the boundary line of a specific landowner. Moreover, in light of the location of the remaining plastic walls and the result of the excavation survey conducted on the surrounding land, there is insufficient grounds for the possibility that the boundary line of the project implementation zone of the project implementation zone of the instant public notice, which is the project of this case, falls under the area where the river was located in the past, and there is no possibility for such area to be designated as a sexual wall restoration zone. The instant public notice of project approval does not require the need for public expropriation on the sole basis of the fact that the instant basic plan of this case is located within the said management zone. If the landowner’s request for purchase was made without any particular criteria for the land of the II zone and I-III zone under the instant basic plan, the instant basic plan of this case was planned to preserve and improve the wind and its surrounding environment.

(j) The Intervenor asserts that there is no need to review the existing site for the restoration of cultural heritage as well as the existing site for the public interest, and that it constitutes a fire preservation, even if there is no existing site for the relevant private land. However, such assertion is not reasonable as to whether there is a need to review the existing site for the restoration of cultural heritage as well as the existing site for the maintenance of cultural heritage as a historical, artistic, academic, or world heritage that is highly likely to be protected under the Cultural Heritage Protection Act, and that there is no need to review the existing site for the maintenance of cultural heritage as well as the existing site for the maintenance of cultural heritage as an existing site for the maintenance of cultural heritage as well as the existing site for the maintenance of cultural heritage as an existing site for the maintenance of cultural heritage as a historical, artistic, or world, and that there is no need to review the existing site for the maintenance of cultural heritage as well as the existing site for the maintenance of cultural heritage as an existing site for the maintenance of cultural heritage as well as the existing site for the maintenance of cultural heritage as a historical, artistic, and cultural heritage.

(k) In light of the project cost, the project in this case requires more than 40 years to compensate for land by designating the whole area of I and I as cultural property, and it is anticipated that more than 50 years will be required to conduct an excavation investigation after compensation. The Land Compensation Act provides that, when acquiring land for public works through consultation, a repurchase right shall be created if all of the acquired land is not used for the relevant project (Article 91(1) and (2) of the Land Compensation Act). It is premised on the fact that the project can be granted early and legally and there is a need for early completion of the project. Moreover, it is difficult to find that there is a need for early expropriation of the designated cultural property in this case because there is a possibility that the existing project needs to be restored in the past by excessively blocking the existing project from realizing its own, and that there is an urgent need to obtain a permit to expropriate the relevant cultural property after the accumulation of the existing cultural property in this case.

4) Whether there is a legitimate comparison or bridge between interests related to the instant project

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by Gap's 20, 31, 32, and Eul's 2-2's overall purport of the statements and arguments, the instant project is lacking in public interest and is also unlawful, even if there is a public interest achieved due to the public interest approval of the instant project, the comparison between the public interest and the private interest infringed upon such public interest and the bridge is illegal.

A) The purpose of the instant project in order to find and investigate the cruel damages of the scenic wall that may exist in the site subject to expropriation of this case, and to verify the relevant flexible trace, and to secure the basis for maintenance, can be achieved only by using the entire land, not by compulsory expropriation. It is reasonable to deem that the project operator can expropriate the relevant land within the extent necessary only when it is confirmed that there is a cultural property to be existing and maintained as a result of the excavation and survey through temporary use of the land. As such, the instant public announcement of the project in order to expropriate the site subject to expropriation of this case (the whole site of the Plaintiff except the Si land), which requires the expropriation, use, or restriction of the property right within the necessary scope, is in violation of the Constitution. Furthermore, the instant public project project in order to remove the project facilities in the vicinity of cultural heritage and residential facilities in the future, thereby infringing on the local residents’ living zone and the Plaintiff’s right to receive compensation, and it is also unreasonable not only because it violates the purpose of the instant public project in a way beyond 00 billion won.

B) The Land Compensation Act prepares (Article 7(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Land Compensation Act), based on the land map drawn up, and (2) prepares land and goods protocols pursuant to Article 14(1) of the Land Compensation Act (Article 7(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Land Compensation Act, based on the land map drawn up, and (3) notifies or notifies the landowners of the request for consultation after preparing land and goods protocols, and (4) as to the land for which no consultation has been reached, the application for the project approval shall be made (Article 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the Land Compensation Act), the project approval application shall be accompanied by a document stating the project plan, planned area and project plan, the land owner, etc., and a document stating the details of the land to be expropriated or used (Article 10 of the Enforcement Decree of the Land Compensation Act), and the details of the land for which the project is to be expropriated shall not be clearly determined and definite, as the project area is to be expropriated or altered.

In other words, the project site of the above project approval application is only the site of the plaintiff factory as the project site.

A person shall be appointed.

As the project area does not coincide with the actual project area, it constitutes the so-called land expropriation method, the project implementation area of which is only a part of the land. Such project approval method is likely to be abused in the way of project approval for the purpose of lowering non-cooperative owners of the relevant project under the condition that the outline of the entire project is unclear. In addition, in principle, the procedure for acquiring cultural properties through consultation for the maintenance and restoration of cultural properties and the procedure for compensation for losses is not permissible in the order of the expropriation of the land in question [i.e., confirmation of the existence of cultural properties through an advance structure ? Preparation of a historical site designation plan ? Preparation of a drawing of the planned site and the project plan ? Acquisition of land and goods protocols ? An application for the project approval of the land without consultation on the implementation of the project, as long as the project in this case is recognized, the need to complete and implement the project in the order of the expropriation of cultural properties to the extent that the landowner’s ownership can not be acknowledged by the need to complete and implement the project within a certain period of time, such as the expropriation of the project area.

5) Whether there is any defect in the project implementation entity

A) Under the Land Compensation Act, a project operator refers to a person who performs a public project (Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the Commercial Act on Land), and a project operator is eligible to expropriate and use land, etc. as prescribed by the Land Compensation Act, and is granted a project approval from the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport for the expropriation and use of land.

Articles 19 and 20). Meanwhile, Article 81(1) of the Land Compensation Act provides that "a private project operator may entrust a local government or a public institution or a local government-invested public corporation with the performance of duties concerning compensation or relocation measures or expertise in the compensation affairs with an institution determined by the Enforcement Decree of the Land Compensation Act (hereinafter referred to as "specialized institution for compensation"). Accordingly, Article 43(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Land Compensation Act provides that a project operator may entrust a specialized institution for compensation with the scope of duties that a specialized institution for compensation may entrust a specialized institution for compensation. This provision provides that a specialized institution for compensation may enter into a contract for compensation under the name of a specialized institution for compensation and payment of compensation under the premise that a public project is performed under the name of a specialized institution for compensation, and does not allow a specialized institution for compensation to enter into a sales contract for acquisition through consultation or payment of compensation. According to Article 43 of the Enforcement Decree of the Land Compensation Act, a project operator shall not only pay a commission fee to a specialized institution for compensation but also pay the entrusted institution for compensation under the former Land Compensation Act.

B) The instant project approval is made by the Administrator of Songpa-gu Office for the Intervenor. However, considering the fact that the Intervenor’s project operator and the Intervenor’s project operator suffered losses from June 4, 200 to August 1, 2016, the project operator’s public announcement of the compensation plan for losses was made for E residents, and it is unclear whether the Intervenor is the head of Songpa-gu Office or C or not, but the majority of the public announcement of the compensation plan for losses states that the Intervenor’s public announcement of the project operator and the Intervenor’s public announcement of the project is unlawful in terms of the following factors: (a) the Intervenor’s public announcement of the compensation plan for losses was made under the name of the Intervenor’s own land to the head of Songpa-gu Office for the sake of minimizing the acquisition price of the instant land; and (b) the Intervenor’s public announcement of the compensation plan may not be made under the name of the Intervenor’s own land to the head of Songpa-gu Office for the purpose of removing the land under the name of the Intervenor.

C) In addition, comprehensively taking into account the provisions of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act, it is possible for a project operator to restore the land of the State-designated cultural heritage, and the eligibility for the project operator under the Act on the Protection of Cultural Heritage to the Intervenor (Local Government) other than the head of Songpa-gu (Local Government). In light of the foregoing, “designated cultural heritage” under the Act on the Protection of Cultural Heritage and the Act on the Protection of Cultural Heritage and the Act on the Protection of Cultural Heritage and the Act on the Protection of Cultural Heritage and the Act on the Protection of Cultural Heritage and the Act on the Protection of Cultural Heritage and the Act on the Protection of Cultural Heritage and the Act on the Protection of Cultural Heritage and the Act on the Protection of Cultural Heritage and the Act on the Protection of Cultural Heritage and the Act on the Protection of State-designated Cultural Heritage and the Act on the Protection of State-designated Cultural Heritage and the Act on the Protection of State-designated Cultural Heritage and the Act on the Protection of State-designated Cultural Heritage and the Act on the Protection of State-designated Cultural Heritage and the Act on the Protection of State-designated Cultural Heritage.

D) On the ground that B’s Cultural Heritage Protection Act imposes an obligation to preserve and manage cultural heritage identical to that of the State on the local government, and also serves as a management organization of the local government, the government-designated cultural heritage is also managed, and even according to the language of Article 83(1) of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act, the project implementer may expropriate cultural heritage without distinction between the State and the local government-designated cultural heritage, and the head of the Songpa-gu local government who is the head of the local government who is the management organization of the State-designated cultural heritage may also be entitled to expropriate the State-designated cultural heritage as a management organization of the State-designated cultural heritage. However, as seen earlier, the 20th State-designated cultural heritage Protection Act provides that the State-designated cultural heritage is not a management organization of the State-designated cultural heritage, which is a management organization of the State-designated cultural heritage, (i.e., the owner of the designated cultural heritage, or (ii) the management organization of the State-designated cultural heritage may not be designated as a management organization of the State-designated cultural heritage.

E) Article 5 of the Guidelines for the Management of State-designated Cultural Heritage Management Organizations, which is the Directive of the Cultural Heritage Administration, provides for the following:

According to the above guidelines, the ownership of cultural heritage is acquired within the management act of the management organization.

A person shall be appointed.

According to the above guidelines, acquisition by consultation or expropriation for the acquisition of ownership of cultural heritage is not included in the management act of the management organization. In addition, the head of Songpa-gu asked about the scope of the "management organization of cultural heritage" to a member of Songpa-gu. On this issue, C, who is a member of the management organization of cultural heritage designated by B, sent a reply to "all acts of the management organization of cultural heritage designated by B, except for the owner's right to dispose of the relevant cultural property, and the duty (Article 34 of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act), which are delegated by the court procedure (Article 34 of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act). It is evident that even according to the above contents, disposal right for the cultural heritage in question can not be included in the category of the management organization's management act of cultural heritage, namely, compulsory expropriation. Therefore, it is impossible for the management organization to become the subject of compulsory expropriation for the acquisition of ownership of cultural heritage as part of the management act of Songpa-gu, and therefore, it is possible for the head of Songpa-gu and the intervenor, not the intervenor, to be the State-designated.

E. Sub-determination

Therefore, the instant project approval is difficult to recognize the public interest and necessity of the project, the comparison between the public interest and private interest that can be achieved by the project and the public interest that can be achieved by the project, and there was a defect in the aspect of the project implementation subject, and therefore, it is necessary to cancel the instant project approval without any need to examine the remainder of the Plaintiff’s remaining arguments.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.

Judges in charge of the presiding judge

Judges Cho Jong-soo

Judges Kim Jong-hwan

1) Article 23(3) of the Constitution: Expropriation, use or restriction of property rights due to public necessity, and compensation therefor shall be governed by Act, and due compensation shall be paid.

section 23(3).

2) means the subdivision line indicated in the cadastral map or forestry map of the spatial, geographical range necessary for carrying out the plan of the public works.

[Attachment 1 to 3]

Omission

[Attachment 4]

Related statutes

Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects

Article 1 (Purpose)

The purpose of this Act is to ensure the promotion of public welfare and the appropriate protection of property rights through the efficient implementation of public works, by prescribing matters concerning the indemnity for any loss incurred by the acquisition or use of land, etc. required for the public works through consultations or expropriation.

Article 2 (Definitions)

The terms used in this Act shall be defined as follows:

1. The term "land, etc." means land, goods, and rights falling under any subparagraph of Article 3;

2. The term "public works" means projects falling under any subparagraph of Article 4;

3. The term "project operator" means any person who implements public works;

4. The term "land owner" means an owner of land required for public works;

5. The term "related person" means any person who holds superficies, easements on a deposit basis, mortgages on a right to lease on a land acquired or to be used by a project operator, rights other than ownership in the land, or rights other than ownership in the land: Provided, That no person who has acquired rights after public announcement of project approval under Article 22 is required to include persons who have succeeded to existing rights, except for persons who have succeeded to existing rights;

6. The term "point of time for pricing" means a point of time that serves as the standard for calculating an amount of compensation under Article 67 (1);

7. The term "project approval" means a determination of any public project as a project to expropriate or use land, etc.

Article 4 (Public Works)

Any project that may acquire or use land, etc. under this Act shall be a project falling under any of the following subparagraphs:

1. Projects for national defense and military affairs;

2. Projects related to the observation of railroads, roads, airports, ports, parking lots, public truck trucking terminals (trale roads), rivers, banks, dams, canals, water supply, sewage terminal treatment, sewage treatment, wastewater treatment, fire prevention (debris), fire prevention (debris prevention), flood control (debris), water supply, oil supply, waste control, waste control, electricity, telecommunications, broadcasting, gas and weather with water for reservoirs, which are implemented for public interest with permission, authorization, designation, etc. under the relevant Acts.

3. Projects concerning office buildings, factories, research institutes, laboratories' health facilities, cultural facilities, parks, arboretums, squares, playgrounds, playgrounds, Sis, crematoriums, slaughterhouses, slaughterhouses, or other public facilities established by the State or local governments;

4. Projects for the establishment of schools, libraries, museums, and Buddhist halls, which are implemented for the public interest by obtaining permission, authorization, designation, etc. under the relevant Acts;

5. Projects concerning the construction of housing or the creation of housing sites and industrial complexes, implemented by the State, local governments, public institutions under Article 4 of the Act on the Management of Public Institutions, local public enterprises under the Local Public Enterprises Act, or persons designated by the State or local governments for the purpose of lease or transfer;

6. Projects with respect to passages, bridges, electric lines, material storages or other facilities annexed thereto, which are necessary for implementing the projects under subparagraphs 1 through 5;

7. Projects concerning the construction of relocation complexes, such as houses, factories, etc., necessary for the implementation of the projects under subparagraphs 1 through 5; 8. Other projects eligible for expropriation or use of land, etc. under the Acts prescribed in the attached Table.

[Attachment Table] Other projects for which land, etc. may be expropriated or used pursuant to the Acts prescribed in the attached Table (Article 4 subparagraph 8)

43. Preservation and management of cultural heritage under the Cultural Heritage Protection Act;

Article 14 (Preparation of Protocol of Land and Goods)

(1) When any project operator needs to acquire or use land, etc. through consultation before project approval is granted under Article 20 to implement the public works, he/she shall prepare a land and goods protocol and affix his/her signature or seal thereon, and have landowners and relevant persons affix their signatures or seals thereon: Provided, That the same shall not apply to any of the following cases. In such cases, the relevant project operator shall enter the grounds in the relevant land and goods protocol:

1-. Where landowners and persons concerned refuse to affix their signatures or seals without justifiable grounds;

2. Where the landowner or person concerned is unable to affix his/her signature or seal on the grounds that he/she is unable to identify the landowner or person concerned or his/her domicile or temporary domicile is unknown;

(2) Matters necessary for the entries in a land and goods protocol and preparation thereof, such as the location of land and goods, landowners and persons concerned, shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree.

Article 16 (Consultation)

A project operator shall faithfully consult with landowners and persons concerned about compensation for land, etc., and matters necessary for consultation, such as procedures and methods for such consultation, shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree.

Article 17 (Conclusion of Contracts)

A project operator shall enter into a contract with landowners and persons concerned, when consultation under Article 16 has yielded any agreement.

Article 19 (Expropriation or Use of Land, etc.)

(1) Any project operator may expropriate or use land, etc., as prescribed by this Act, if necessary for implementing the public works.

(2) No land, etc. expropriated or used for the public works shall be expropriated or used for other public works, unless it is specially required.

Article 20 (Authorization for Project)

(1) Where a project operator intends to expropriate or use land, etc. under Article 19, he/she shall obtain approval of the Minister of Construction and Transportation, as prescribed by Presidential Decree.

(2) A person who intends to apply for a project approval under paragraph (1) shall pay fees prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure

Article 61 (Indemnity by Project Operators)

The project operator shall compensate landowners or persons concerned for any losses incurred by the acquisition or use of the land, etc. required for the public works.

Article 62 (Advance Compensation)

Any project operator shall pay the full amount of compensation to landowners and persons concerned before commencing his/her works for the relevant public works: Provided, That the same shall not apply where the land is used at the time of natural disasters under Article 38, where it is for urgent private use under Article 39, or where the landowner and persons concerned consent to do so.

Article 65 (Lump Sum Compensation)

Where there exist, within the same project area, several pieces of land, etc. under the same ownership with the different indemnity periods, the project operator shall make a lump sum payment of indemnity, when the landowners or persons concerned request so.

Article 81 (Entrustment of Indemnity Affairs, etc.)

(1) Any project operator may entrust any of the following institutions with the affairs concerning the indemnity or relocation measures:

1. Local governments;

2. An institution prescribed by Presidential Decree, which has the actual record of compensation or expertise in the affairs of compensation, is a public institution under Article 4 of the Act on the Management of Public Institutions or a local public corporation under the Local Public Enterprises Act.

(2) Matters necessary for the scope of duties, fees, etc. when entrusting under paragraph (1) shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree.

Article 91 (Right of Repurchase)

(1) Where all or part of the acquired land becomes unnecessary due to the discontinuation or alteration of the relevant private business or for other reasons within ten years from the date the land is acquired through consultation or the date the expropriation of land commences (hereafter referred to as "acquisition date" in this Article), the landowner at the time of the acquisition date or his/her universal successor (hereinafter referred to as "redemption right holder") may repurchase such land by paying to the project implementer an amount equivalent to the indemnity paid for such land, within one year from the date all or part of the relevant land becomes unnecessary or within ten years from the date the land is acquired through consultation or the date the expropriation of such land is commenced.

(2) Where all of the acquired land is not used for the relevant business within five years from the date of acquisition, paragraph (1) shall apply mutatis mutandis. In such cases, the repurchase right shall be exercised within six years from the date of acquisition.

- Enforcement Decree of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects

Article 7 (Preparation of Land and Goods Protocol, etc.)

(1) When a plan for public works is finalized, the relevant project operator shall prepare a site map indicating the land involved in the cadastral map or forestry map under the Act on the Establishment, Management, etc. of Spatial Data.

(2) Pursuant to Article 14 (1) of the Act, a project operator shall prepare a land protocol (hereinafter referred to as "land protocol") and a goods protocol (hereinafter referred to as "goods protocol") based on the site map drawn up in accordance with paragraph (1).

(3) A land record shall include the following matters:

1. Location lot number, land category, total area, incorporated area and actual state of use of the land;

2. The name or title and domicile of the landowner;

3. The name or title, address, and the kind and details of rights to the land of the persons who hold rights other than ownership; and

4. Date of preparation; and

5. Other matters necessary for the computation of compensation for the land.

Article 8 (Procedures, Methods, etc. of Consultation)

(1) Where a project operator intends to hold consultation under Article 16 of the Act, he/she shall notify landowners and persons concerned of the following matters in a written request for consultation on compensation prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport: Provided, That where the landowners and persons concerned are unknown or the domicile, temporary domicile or other place for notification is unknown, such notification may be substituted by public announcement under paragraph

1. The consultation period, place and method;

2. The timing, method, procedure, and amount of compensation;

3. Documents required for concluding a contract.

(2) The public announcement under the proviso to the part other than the subparagraphs of paragraph (1) shall be made by sending the documents to be publicly announced by a project operator to the head of a Si (including a Si of an administrative city), Gun, or Gu (including a non-autonomous Gu) having jurisdiction over the location of land, etc. and posting them on the bulletin board and website of the relevant Si (including an administrative city), Gun, or Gu (including a non-autonomous Gu) or on the website of a non-autonomous Gu, for at least 14 days.

(3) The consultation period referred to in paragraph (1) 1 shall be at least 30 days except in extenuating circumstances.

(4) The terms and conditions of a contract concluded pursuant to Article 17 of the Act shall include matters concerning the termination or amendment of the contract, and matters concerning the recovery of award, restoration to original state, etc. incidental thereto.

(5) Where a project operator fails to reach an agreement within the period of consultation under paragraph (1) 1, he/she shall obtain signatures or seals of landowners and persons concerned, stating the following matters in a detailed statement of consultation to be determined by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport: Provided, That where landowners and persons concerned refuse to affix their signatures or seals without justifiable grounds, or it is impossible to obtain signatures or seals on the grounds that the landowners and persons concerned are unknown or the addresses, addresses and other places to be notified are unknown, etc., he/she shall not obtain such signatures or seals, but shall state the grounds therefor in

1. The date, time, place, and method of consultation;

2. The location lot number, land category and area of the relevant land, and the kind, structure and quantity of the goods on the land;

3. The name or title and domicile of the landowner and person concerned;

4. Specific arguments made by the landowner and person concerned and the opinion of the project operator thereon.

5. Other matters related to the consultation.

Article 10 (Applications for Approval of Projects)

(1) A person who intends to obtain project approval (hereinafter referred to as "project approval") under Article 20 (1) of the Act shall submit an application for project approval prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (hereinafter referred to as "application for project approval") to the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport after the Special Metropolitan City Mayor, a Metropolitan City Mayor, a Do Governor, or a Special Self-Governing Province Governor (hereinafter referred to as "Mayor/Do Governor") stating the following matters: Provided, That where a project operator is the State, the head of the relevant central administrative agency who directly implements the relevant project may submit an application for project approval to the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport:

1. The name or title and domicile of the project operator;

2. Type and title of the project;

3. Projected area.

4. Reasons for applying for project approval;

(2) A project approval application shall be accompanied by the following documents and drawings:

1. Business plan;

2. Drawings describing the planned project area and the project plan;

3. In cases of land, etc. under Article 19 (2) of the Act within the planned project area, a protocol and drawings of such land, etc. and a written opinion of the manager of the land, etc.

4. Where the use of land in the planned project area is restricted by other statutes, a written opinion of the head of the competent administrative agency concerning the enforcement thereof;

5. Where it is necessary to grant a license or authorization of an administrative agency or take any other disposition with respect to the implementation of the project, documents attesting the fact of such disposition or written opinion of the head

6. Documents stating the details of consultation with the landowners or persons concerned (limited to cases where consultation has been held);

7. A document stating the detailed details of the land to be expropriated or used (where goods or rights other than land are expropriated or used, referring to the detailed details of the relevant goods or the land in which such rights are located);

Article 43 (Specialized Institutions, etc. for Compensation)

(1) "Institution prescribed by Presidential Decree" in Article 81 (1) 2 of the Act means any of the following institutions:

1. The Korea Land and Housing Corporation under the Korea Land and Housing Corporation Act;

2. The Korea Water Resources Corporation under the Korea Water Resources Corporation Act;

3. Korea Highway Corporation under the Korea Highway Corporation Act;

4. The Korea Rural Community Corporation under the Korea Rural Community Corporation and Farmland Management Fund Act;

5. The Korea Appraisal Board under the Korea Appraisal Board Act;

6. A local public corporation established by a Special Metropolitan City, Metropolitan City, Do or Special Self-Governing Province to conduct projects for housing site development, housing construction, etc. pursuant to Article 49 of the Local Public Enterprises Act;

(2) Pursuant to Article 81 of the Act, a project operator may entrust the following affairs to an institution specified in any subparagraph of Article 81 (1) of the Act (hereinafter referred to as "institution specializing in compensation"):

1. Affairs concerning the formulation, public announcement, and perusal of a compensation plan;

2. Examination of official records, such as land registers and building registers. In such cases, examination of land registers and building registers may be substituted by examination of comprehensive official records of real estate;

3. Survey on matters concerning the ownership of land, etc. and rights other than the ownership.

4. Land survey for subdivision and cadastral registration;

5. Examination of descriptions in a land or goods protocol;

6. Investigations into compensation for the remaining land and the land outside the public works zone;

7. Investigation into losses incurred in business, agriculture, fishery, and mining;

8. Calculation of compensation amount (excluding appraisal business);

9. Consultations, conclusion of contracts, and payment of compensation;

10. Affairs related to the treatment of civil petitions and performance of litigation related to compensation;

11. Registration of land, etc.;

12. Formulation and implementation of the relocation measures or the payment of resettlement subsidies;

13. Other affairs incidental to compensation.

(3) Where a project operator intends to entrust any of the affairs referred to in the subparagraphs of paragraph (2) to an institution specialized in compensation pursuant to Article 81 of the Act, he/she shall consult in advance with such institution specialized in compensation.

(4) When a project operator entrusts a specialized compensation institution with the affairs specified in the subparagraphs of paragraph (2) pursuant to Article 81 of the Act, he/she shall pay a commission fee prescribed in attached Table 1 to the specialized compensation institution: Provided, That where a project operator entrusts part of the affairs specified in the subparagraphs of paragraph (2) to a specialized compensation institution, the commission fee shall be determined through consultation

(5) Where a specialized compensation institution has disbursed special expenses, such as assessment fees, measurement fees, the completion of registration of survey fees, and attorney's fees, which are not expenses incurred in performing the ordinary affairs, a project operator shall pay such expenses to the specialized compensation institution, in addition to the entrustment fees under paragraph

Cultural Heritage Protection Act

Article 2 (Definitions)

(1) The term "cultural heritage" used in this Act means artificially or naturally formed national, ethnic, or world heritage of outstanding historic, artistic, academic, or scenic value, which is classified into the following categories:

1. Tangible cultural heritage: Tangible cultural works of outstanding historic, artistic, or academic value, such as buildings, records, books, ancient documents, paintings, sculptures, craft works, etc., and other ancient resources equivalent thereto (materials archeology);

2. Intangible cultural heritage: Among intangible cultural heritage that have been transmitted throughout many generations, those falling under any of the following items:

(a) Traditional performances and Arts;

(b) Traditional technology concerning crafts, art, etc.;

(c) traditional knowledge concerning Korean medicine, agriculture, fishery, etc.;

(d) Oral tradition and expression;

(e) Traditional living customs, such as food, clothing and shelter;

(f) Social rites, such as religion of the private sector;

(g) Traditional games, festivals and martial arts;

3. Commemorative articles: Those falling under any of the following items:

(a) Historic sites, such as temple sites, ancient mounds, ancient shells, patri moundss, ancient mounds, old mounds, ancient mounds, old patrine sites, and relic-containing strata, and particularly patriarched facilities, of outstanding historic and academic value;

(b) Scenic sites of outstanding artistic value and outstanding scenic view;

(c) Animals (including their habitats, breeding grounds, and migratory places), plants (including their habitats), topography, geological features, minerals, dynamics, aquatic physical products, or special natural phenomena of outstanding historic, scenic, or academic value;

4. Folk resources: Clothing, instruments, houses, etc. used for customs or customs related to food, clothing, housing, trades, religion, annual events, etc., which are essential to understand changes in the life of people.

(2) The term "designated cultural heritage" in this Act means the following cultural heritage:

1. State-designated cultural heritage: Cultural heritage designated by B pursuant to Articles 23 through 26;

2. City/Do-designated cultural heritage: Cultural heritage designated by the Special Metropolitan City Mayor, Metropolitan City Mayor, Metropolitan Autonomous City Mayor, Do Governor, or Special Self-Governing Province Governor (hereinafter referred to as "Mayor/Do Governor") pursuant to Article 70 (1).

3. Cultural heritage resources: Cultural heritage resources designated by the Mayor/Do Governor pursuant to Article 70 (2) among those not designated pursuant to subparagraph 1 or 2.

(3) The term "registered cultural heritage" in this Act means cultural heritage registered pursuant to Article 53, which is not a registered cultural heritage.

(4) For the purpose of this Act, the term "protection zone" means an area designated to protect any designated cultural heritage, excluding an area where the designated cultural heritage occupies, where a tangible object fixed on the ground or a certain area is designated as cultural heritage.

(5) The term "protective facilities" in this Act means any building or facility designated to protect cultural heritage.

(6) The term "cultural and cultural environment" in this Act means a historic and cultural environment surrounding cultural heritage, or any space of outstanding historic and cultural value, which is an surrounding environment that needs to be protected together with cultural heritage.

(7) For the purpose of this Act, the term "construction works" means civil engineering works, building works, landscaping works, or construction works prescribed by Presidential Decree, which involve a change to the original form of land or seabed.

(8) The term "cultural heritage overseas" used in this Act means cultural heritage overseas and currently located outside the territory of the Republic of Korea. Article 3 (Basic Principle of Protection of Cultural Heritage Overseas)

The basic principle of the preservation, management, and utilization of cultural heritage shall be the maintenance of its original form.

Article 25 (Designation of Historic Sites, Scenic Areas, and Natural Scenery)

(1) B may designate important monuments as a historic site, scenic area, or natural monument, following deliberation by the Cultural Heritage Committee.

Article 33 (Principle of Owner Management)

(1) An owner of State-designated cultural heritage shall manage and protect the relevant cultural heritage with due care as a good manager.

(2) An owner of State-designated cultural heritage may, on his/her behalf, appoint a manager responsible for managing and protecting the cultural heritage.

Article 34 (Management by Management Organization)

(1) Where an owner of State-designated cultural heritage is unclear, or it is deemed difficult or inappropriate to manage the State-designated cultural heritage by its owner or custodian, B may designate a local government or a corporation or organization suitable to manage the State-designated cultural heritage in order to manage the State-designated cultural heritage concerned. In such cases, a management organization of State-designated cultural heritage which is not directly managed by the State shall be the competent Special Self-Governing City, Special Self-Governing Province, or Si/Gun/Gu (referring to an autonomous Gu; hereinafter the same shall apply): Provided, That where cultural heritage extends over at least two Sis/Guns/Gus, the competent Special Metropolitan City, Metropolitan Cities, or Dos (excluding a Special Self-Governing City and a Special Self-Governing Province) shall be a management organization.

(2) A local government designated as a management organization may entrust a corporation or organization competent to manage the relevant cultural heritage with management affairs thereof in consultation with B.

(3) Where a management organization is designated pursuant to the former part of paragraph (1), B shall hear the opinions of the owner of the cultural heritage or the local government, corporation or organization that intends to designate.

(4) Where a management organization is designated pursuant to paragraph (1), a public announcement of the purport thereof shall be made in the Official Gazette, and such designation shall be made to the minor, custodian and the relevant management organization of State-designated cultural heritage.

(5) No person shall interfere with management activities conducted by a management organization designated pursuant to paragraph (1).

(6) Except as otherwise expressly provided for in this Act, expenses, such as operating expenses, incurred in managing State-designated cultural heritage shall be borne by a management organization for each year, and the State or a local government may subsidize such expenses within budgetary limits, if the management organization fails to bear such

(7) Article 30 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the time the designation of a management organization under paragraph (1) becomes effective.

Article 74 (Applicable Provisions)

(2) Articles 27, 31 (1) and (4), 32 through 34, 35 (1), 36, 37, 40, 42 through 45, 48, and 49 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the designation, cancellation, management, etc. of City/Do-designated cultural heritage and cultural heritage resources. In such cases, "B" shall be construed as "Mayor/Do Governor," "Presidential Decree" as "Si/Do Ordinance," and "State" as "local government."

Article 83 (Expropriation or Use of Land)

(1) If necessary for the preservation and management of cultural heritage, B or the head of a local government may expropriate or use land, buildings, standing trees, bamboo, or other structures within designated cultural heritage or its protection zone pursuant to the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects.

(2) Deleted.

/Act on Protection and Inspection of Buried Cultural Heritage

Article 1 (Purpose)

The purpose of this Act is to maintain and inherit the original form of national culture by preserving buried cultural heritage and to efficiently protect, inspect and manage buried cultural heritage.

Article 11 (Permission, etc. for Excavation of Buried Cultural Heritage)

(1) An area of buried cultural heritage shall not be excavated: Provided, That in any of the following cases, where permission is obtained from B as prescribed by Presidential Decree, such area may be excavated:

1. Where excavation is conducted for research purposes;

2. Where such area is excavated for a project aimed at maintaining relics (or remains);

3. Where excavation is necessary for civil engineering works, changes in the form and quality of land, or other construction works, as prescribed by Presidential Decree;

4. Where it is necessary to urgently excavate relics that are likely to be destroyed or damaged, etc.;

(2) Where permission for excavation is granted pursuant to the proviso to paragraph (1), B may determine the details of such permission or instruct necessary matters, and even if permission is granted, it may order the suspension or suspension of excavation, as prescribed by Presidential Decree, or revoke such permission.

(3) Where an area of buried cultural heritage is excavated, expenses therefor shall be borne by a person who has obtained permission to excavate the relevant cultural heritage in cases falling under paragraph (1) 1, 2 and 4, and by the implementer of the relevant construction works in cases falling under paragraph (1) 3: Provided, That in cases of expenses incurred in excavation due to construction works prescribed by Presidential Decree, the State or a local government may provide support within budgetary limits.

(4) Necessary matters concerning the method, procedure, etc. for the excavation and inspection shall be determined and publicly notified B.

Article 13 (Excavation of Buried Cultural Heritage by State)

(1) B If necessary for academic surveys or for public purposes, etc., the area of buried cultural heritage falling under any of the following subparagraphs may be excavated:

2. Areas where underwater cultural properties are distributed;

3. An area of high historical value, such as the site of a desolated temple.

(2) Where excavation is conducted pursuant to paragraph (1), B may require an inspection institution of buried cultural heritage under Article 24 to excavate. (3) B shall, where excavation is conducted pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (2), notify the owner, manager, or occupant of the area of buried cultural heritage of the purpose, method, timing, etc. of excavation, as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, and where excavation is completed, he/she shall notify the inspection institution of the results of excavation, such as the current status of buried cultural heritage, within 30 days from the date the excavation is completed.

(4) The owner, manager, or occupant of an area of buried cultural heritage notified under paragraph (3) shall not refuse, obstruct, or evade excavation under paragraphs (1) and (2).

(5) The State shall compensate a person who suffers loss due to excavation prescribed in paragraphs (1) and (2) for such loss.

(6) A person who has suffered losses under paragraph (5) shall consult with each other, and if no agreement is reached or no consultation is possible, he/she may apply for a ruling to the competent Land Tribunal.

(7) Articles 83 through 87 of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects shall apply mutatis mutandis to any adjudication rendered by the competent Land Tribunal.

Article 26 (Purchase of Land Following Measures to Preserve Cultural Heritage) (1) Where a development project is not fully or partially implemented due to measures to preserve cultural heritage under Article 14, the State or a local government may purchase the relevant land.

(2) Necessary matters concerning methods and procedures for purchasing land under paragraph (1) shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree.

【Act on the Repair, etc. of Cultural Heritage

Article 1 (Purpose)

In order to preserve and inherit cultural heritage in its original form, the purpose of this Act is to improve the quality of cultural heritage repair and promote the sound development of cultural heritage repair business by prescribing matters necessary for the registration, technical management, etc. of cultural heritage repair business.

Article 2 (Definitions)

The terms used in this Act shall be defined as follows:

1. The term "repair of cultural heritage" means measures for the repair, restoration, maintenance, and prevention of damage to any of the following items:

(a) Designated cultural heritage (excluding intangible cultural heritage; hereinafter the same shall apply) under Article 2 (2) of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act;

(b) A provisionally designated cultural heritage under Article 32 of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act;

(c) Facilities around which the traditional culture is realized and formed together with designated cultural heritage (including provisionally designated cultural heritage) and which are prescribed by Presidential Decree;

Finally,