Plaintiff 1 and 10 others (Law Firm Best, Attorneys Shin Young-cheon et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Dae-2 District Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association (Law Firm Lee & Lee, Attorneys Park Jong-hee, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

July 21, 2016

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs the amount of money listed in the attached Table 1's attached Table 1 with 5% interest per annum from December 9, 2014 to August 18, 2016, and 15% interest per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

2. Each of the plaintiffs' remaining claims is dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs 1 5% interest per annum from December 9, 2014 to the service date of a copy of the request for correction of the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim as of May 24, 2016, and 15% interest per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project association established to implement a housing redevelopment project in the area of 164,325.01 square meters (the area of the zone at the time when the establishment of the association was approved is modified and the first project area is the same as the above; hereinafter “instant project area”) in Busan-dong, Busan-dong, 1595 square meters (the area of the zone at the time when the establishment of the association was approved, and the first project area is the same; hereinafter “instant project area”). Plaintiffs 1, 2, 3, 4 (the original judgment: Plaintiff 1), 5, 6 (Plaintiff 2), 7, 8 (original judgment: Plaintiff 3), 9, 10, and deceased Nonparty 1 are the owners of the land, etc. within the instant project area.

On November 28, 2014, the deceased Nonparty 1 died. The deceased’s heir was the Plaintiff 11, Nonparty 2, Nonparty 3, and Nonparty 4, who was the wife, but Plaintiff 11 solely succeeded to the land, etc. in the instant business area of the deceased Nonparty 1 upon the agreement on the division of inherited property by the heir (hereinafter in this case, the part on convenience Nonparty 1 and Plaintiff 11 collectively referred to as “Plaintiff 11”).

B. On August 16, 2007, the defendant obtained approval of the project implementation plan (hereinafter referred to as "the first project implementation plan" and "authorization of the first project implementation plan") from the head of Nam-gu Busan Metropolitan City (hereinafter referred to as "the head of Nam-gu") on August 16, 2007. The first project implementation plan was announced by Busan Metropolitan City Notice No. 2007-39 on August 22, 2007, and the defendant obtained approval of the management and disposition plan (hereinafter referred to as "the first management and disposition plan") from the head of Nam-gu Seoul Metropolitan City (hereinafter referred to as "the head of Nam-gu") on May 10, 2

C. On December 18, 2009, some members filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking confirmation of invalidity of the initial project implementation plan and revocation of the initial management and disposal plan (this Court 2009Guhap6071). On May 13, 2011, this court rendered a favorable judgment against the above members on the ground that “In the case of the initial project implementation plan, consent of the project implementation plan drafted before and after the approval of the promotion committee cannot be viewed as legitimate consent, and the above consent cannot be viewed as null and void if it is excluded from the above consent. Even if the above consent is deemed as a valid consent, the initial project implementation plan is null and void because it does not meet the requirements for consent, and the initial management and disposal plan is also null and void.” Although the Defendant appealed from Busan High Court 201Nu2040), the Defendant appealed on Nov. 9, 2011, and the Defendant appealed again (the Defendant).

D. On November 26, 201, when the lawsuit of the court of final appeal was pending, the Defendant held an extraordinary general meeting on November 26, 201, and passed a modified project implementation plan as shown below, and the remaining head of South Korea, on October 19, 2012, notified the change of the project implementation plan to the Defendant and publicly notified it under Article 2012-120 of the Nam-gu Busan Metropolitan City public notice on October 24, 201 (hereinafter the above changed project implementation plan referred to as the “ modified project implementation plan,” and the authorization for the changed project implementation plan is referred to as the “approval for the change of the project implementation plan”).

1) 164,325: 164,280 square meters of land for 130,695,94.90 square meters of land for 18,649,649.05 square meters of land for 21,649,607.145 square meters of 507,960.89 14.27% of land for 16.27% of 16.45% of land for 260.87% of 26.87% of land for 26.87% of 26.87% of 4,71,714 and 32,544 above ground for 32,45 square meters of land for 12m2, 375 square meters of land for 26.8m2, 364 square meters of housing units, 27.8m27, 275 square meters of land for 35m24,274

E. On November 28, 2013, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the judgment of the above appellate court on the ground that “If the revised management and disposal plan actually changes the major parts of the initial management and disposal plan and constitutes a new management and disposal plan, the first management and disposal plan is merely a legal relationship that has lost its validity, and there is no legal interest to seek its revocation, and the first project implementation plan was also amended, and even if there was no subsequent act such as the procedure for expropriation or any subsequent act, if the first project implementation plan does not affect the rights and obligations of union members at present due to its modification or replacement procedure, there is no legal interest to seek its invalidity confirmation, and accordingly, there is room to deem that all of the lawsuits in this case were unlawful. Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeal ( Busan High Court 2013Nu3238) dismissed the lawsuit on June 11, 2014, which became final and conclusive on July 1, 2014.”

F. Results of each adjudication by the Busan Metropolitan City Land Tribunal and the Central Land Tribunal, each request for appraisal by the appraiser Nonparty 5 and Nonparty 6 of this Court is made as follows.

1) The adjudication of expropriation by the local Land Tribunal of Busan Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant adjudication of expropriation”)

- Commencement date of expropriation: December 8, 2014

- Subject to expropriation: Land owned by the plaintiffs and obstacles in the instant project zone;

2) The Central Land Expropriation Committee’s ruling on the objection (hereinafter “the instant ruling”).

- Subject to expropriation: Land owned by the plaintiffs and obstacles in the instant rearrangement zone;

- Compensation for losses by type of expropriation: The term "compensation" in the attached Table 1 sheet shall be as follows.

3) Results of this court’s commission of appraisal to Nonparty 5

- Land subject to appraisal: Land owned by the plaintiffs and obstacles in the instant rearrangement zone

- The publication date of the project approval which is the basis of the officially announced value of standard land: August 22, 2007 (the first publication date of the project approval);

- Compensation for losses by expropriation: Attached Table 1 " Results of entrustment of appraisal" shall be as stated respectively.

4) The result of this court's fact-finding on Nonparty 5

- Land subject to appraisal: Land owned by the plaintiffs in the instant rearrangement zone

- The publication of the project approved on the basis of the officially announced value of standard land: October 19, 2012 (the date of modified approval of the project implementation plan);

- Compensation for losses by subject of expropriation: Attached Table 1 " Results of fact-finding inquiry" shall be as stated respectively.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5 (including additional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Gap evidence 7 and 10, Gap evidence 12 through 15, Eul evidence 1 to 3, the result of the appraisal commission to non-party 5 and the result of fact inquiry, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

In calculating the amount of compensation for expropriation, the “standard land price” shall be the officially announced price at the nearest point of the basic date of the authorization for the implementation of the redevelopment project in this case before the date of the public announcement of the authorization for the implementation of the redevelopment project. Since the first project implementation plan is invalid or since the authorization for the implementation of the project was made on October 19, 2012, which is the date of the public announcement of the initial authorization for the implementation of the project, it shall not be deemed as the base date of the officially announced land price on January 1, 2007, which is close to August 22, 2007, which is the date of the public announcement of the authorization for the implementation of the project, and on January 1, 2012, which is close to the date of the public announcement of the authorization for the alteration of the project in force at the time of the compensation for loss, the point of time of the officially announced land price shall be deemed as the base date of the publicly announced land price. However, as the result of the appraisal on Nonparty 5 of this court’s entrustment, each appraisal is unlawful.

Therefore, with respect to the land owned by the plaintiffs in the rearrangement zone of this case, the difference between the appraised amount based on the result of the fact-finding inquiry with respect to Nonparty 5 of this court, which was appraised based on the officially announced land price as of January 1, 2012, and the compensation amount recognized at the time of the decision of this case, and with respect to the obstacles owned by the plaintiffs in the rearrangement zone of this case, the difference between the appraised amount based on the appraisal commission with respect to Nonparty 5 and the compensation amount recognized at the time of the decision of this case, and the amount calculated by adding five

B. The defendant's argument

With respect to the land owned by the plaintiffs in the improvement zone of this case, even in the case of Busan High Court 201Nu30199, which was reversed and remanded after the above Supreme Court Decision 2011Du30199, the first project implementation plan was invalidated or invalidated. Thus, the compensation for losses calculated at the time of the appraisal ruling of this case is appropriate, because the first project implementation plan was invalidated or invalidated.

3. Relevant statutes;

Attached Form 2 is as shown in the relevant statutes.

4. Determination

(a) Standard point of time for calculating the officially announced land price of comparative standard land;

1) The Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents only stipulates that the consent shall be made in advance before applying for the approval of a project implementation plan, and the method of consent and quorum shall be subject to autonomous law by articles of association, etc. so if consent was prepared before the contents of the project implementation plan become final and conclusive, it shall not be deemed that the consent form is unlawful merely because the purport of delegation is included in the preparation of a specific project implementation plan. However, in the case of a project implementation plan different from the establishment of an association, the consent form shall not be deemed unlawful. Considering that there is no procedure to verify the intent of the changed project implementation plan, such as the inaugural general meeting prior to the application for approval, in the case of a change in the project implementation plan after the consent, the association has a duty under the good faith to notify its members that it may withdraw the existing consent along with the contents of the changed project implementation plan (see Supreme Court Decisions 2010Du9358, Sep. 30, 2010; 2011Du51733, Feb. 27, 2014).

In this case, we look back to the case, and the promotion committee prior to the establishment of the defendant collected written consent to the establishment of the association from September 2003 to August 2005 along with the written consent to the implementation of the project. However, even if the first project implementation plan was not unlawful only by the requisition itself prior to the confirmation of the consent of the association members, even if the defendant did not confirm the consent of the association members after the change of the project implementation plan and did not meet the requirements for consent, such illegality is not the reason for invalidation, but it is merely the reason for revocation. Therefore, the plaintiff'

2) Articles 67(1) and 67(2) of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (hereinafter “Land Compensation Act”) provide that the amount of compensation shall be calculated based on the price at the time of adjudication of expropriation or use; however, in the case of calculating the amount of compensation, the amount of compensation shall not be considered when the price of land, etc. is changed due to the relevant public works; and Article 70(1) and (4) of the same Act provides that in the case of acquisition after a project approval is granted, the amount of compensation shall be determined based on the officially announced price as at the time of the public announcement as at the time of the public announcement as at the time of the announcement as at the time of the announcement as at the time of the announcement as at the date of the public announcement as at the time of the announcement as to the relevant land; however, the plan to use the relevant land from the basic date to the date of the public announcement as at the time of the announcement as at the time of the announcement as at the time of the announcement as at the first public announcement as at the date of the project approval.

3) Therefore, in the instant case, the officially announced land price as to the comparison standard of land owned by the Plaintiffs is the officially announced land price, namely, the date before August 22, 2007, which is the date of the first announcement of the approval of the project implementation plan, which is the date of the approval of the project implementation plan, and shall be based on January 1, 2007, which is the nearest date of the said public announcement of the project implementation plan. Accordingly, this part

(b) Calculation of reasonable compensation for losses;

In a lawsuit concerning the increase or decrease of land expropriation compensation, in case where the appraisal by each appraisal agency and the appraisal by a court appraiser do not have any illegality in the appraisal methods, and there is no illegality in the appraisal methods, and there is no difference in the appraisal results (the appraised value of the land to be expropriated) due to a somewhat different relation between individual and non-majors, although there is no evidence to prove any error in the appraisal's individual and non-majors, any one of the appraisal is found to be a fair compensation value unless it is contrary to the logical and empirical rules (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Du4679 delivered on January 28, 2005, etc.).

In this case, the land owned by the plaintiffs in the rearrangement zone of this case should be applied as of January 1, 2007, which was the date of the first project implementation plan approval, as of August 22, 2007, which was the date of the first project implementation plan approval. Each appraisal in the adjudication of expropriation of this case and its objection and the appraisal commission of the appraiser non-party 5 of this court to the non-party 5, all of which were applied as of January 1, 2007 as of the date of the first project implementation plan approval. On the other hand, in the fact inquiry of the appraiser non-party 5 of this court, the standard land value of the comparison standard land should be applied as of January 1, 2012 as of the date of the first project implementation plan approval approval. The appraisal method of the appraiser non-party 5 of this court as to the land owned by the plaintiffs in the rearrangement zone of this case is not deemed to have any special reason to be unlawful, and it should be seen that the appraisal results of the appraisal of each land and other obstacles to the expropriation.

Meanwhile, in addition to seeking the payment of the amount according to the result of the fact-finding inquiry, the plaintiffs sought a separate payment of KRW 5 million for each of the plaintiffs, but there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant is liable to pay the amount.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiffs the amount stated in the separate sheet No. 1, which is the reasonable compensation for each land and obstacles as stated in the separate sheet No. 1, and the amount stated in the separate sheet No. 1, which is the difference between the compensation for losses as stated in the judgment of this case, and to pay damages for delay at each rate of 15% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from December 9, 2014 on the date following the date of the commencement of expropriation to August 18, 2016, which is deemed reasonable to dispute about the existence or scope of the defendant's obligation to compensate for losses.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims are justified within the above scope of recognition, and each of them is dismissed as the remaining claims of the plaintiffs are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment Omission]

Judges Kim Dong-ho (Presiding Judge)