Whether a landowner may request an application for adjudication under Article 25-3(1) of the Land Expropriation Act after the period of implementation of an urban planning project expires (negative)

In full view of the provisions of Articles 29(1), 30(1) and (2) of the Urban Planning Act, Articles 17, 25(2), and 25-3(1) of the Land Expropriation Act, where an executor of a urban planning project expropriates land, etc. necessary for an urban planning project within the urban planning zone, an application for adjudication shall be made within the period of project implementation stipulated in the disposition for authorization of an urban planning project implementation plan. If an application for adjudication is not filed within the period of project implementation, the said disposition becomes invalid from the day following the expiration date of the period. Thus, a landowner’s application for adjudication against an executor of an urban planning project under Article 25-3(1)

Articles 29(1), 30(1) and (2) of the Urban Planning Act, Article 17 of the Land Expropriation Act, Articles 25(2) and 25-3(1) of the Land Expropriation Act

Supreme Court Decision 80Da3269 Decided December 22, 1981 (Gong1982, 177) Supreme Court Decision 90Nu971 Decided November 26, 1991 (Gong1992, 323) Supreme Court Decision 93Nu24230 Decided May 24, 1994 (Gong194Ha, 1847)

Plaintiff (Attorney Noh Gong-do et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

The head of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (Law Firm Woo General Law Office, Attorneys Gag-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 95Gu4119 delivered on September 27, 1995

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In full view of the provisions of Articles 29(1), 30(1) and (2) of the Urban Planning Act, Articles 17, 25(2), and 25-3(1) of the Land Expropriation Act, where an executor of a urban planning project expropriates land, etc. necessary for an urban planning project within the urban planning zone, an application for adjudication shall be filed within the period of project implementation stipulated in the disposition for authorization of an urban planning project implementation plan. If an application for adjudication is not filed within the period of project implementation, the said disposition becomes invalid from the day following the expiration date of the period. Thus, it is reasonable to view that a landowner’s request for an application for adjudication against an executor of an urban planning project under Article

In this regard, the court below is just in holding that the defendant's rejection of the plaintiff's claim for adjudication of this case was legitimate after the period for implementation of the urban planning project far expired, and there is no error of law such as the theory of lawsuit.

In addition, the argument in the grounds of appeal that the proviso of Article 30 (2) of the Urban Planning Act, which set the period of application for adjudication within the period of project execution, is merely a decoration provision and thus can file an application for adjudication even after the period of project execution expires, or that the said measure already invalidated becomes retroactively effective due to the same reasons as the theory of lawsuit is not acceptable.

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)