Whether the part of Articles 29 and 30 of the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Ordinance on Housing Improvement and Redevelopment Project that provides for the method of calculating liquidation money in the self-development method is invalid as it violates the Urban Redevelopment Act.

In light of the general reality that the increase in the value of land within a re-development project zone in excess of the input cost is created as a result of the implementation of the redevelopment project, the settlement money to be collected in the case of the implementation of the project by the self-development method of the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Ordinance on Housing Improvement and Redevelopment Projects (Seoul Metropolitan Government Ordinance No. 156), it is sufficiently small that the calculated amount would increase the burden on landowners more than in accordance with the method of the regulations of the Urban Redevelopment Act, and the regulations governing the urban redevelopment relationship do not provide that the method of calculating settlement amount would be different depending on the difference between the redevelopment method and the project implementer. Furthermore, in the case of the urban redevelopment project implemented by the local government as a project developer, the settlement money should be calculated in accordance with the purport of Article 53 of the Urban Redevelopment Act regardless of the difference in the method of redevelopment, and the provisions of Article 53 of the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Ordinance on Housing Redevelopment and Improvement of the purport of Article 20 of the Urban Redevelopment Act are inconsistent with the purport of Article 53 of the Urban Redevelopment Act.

Articles 30(1), 53(1), and 53(3) of the Urban Redevelopment Act, Article 31(1)8, Article 31(1)9, and Article 31(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Urban Redevelopment Act, Article 29(1), and Article 30(1) of the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Ordinance on Housing Improvement and Redevelopment Project (Seoul Metropolitan Government Ordinance No. 156) of the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Ordinance on Housing Improvement and Redevelopment Project

Supreme Court Decision 93Nu7624 delivered on December 14, 1993

Plaintiff 1 and two others, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee

Head of Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (Attorney Park Sang-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 92Gu6107 delivered on July 8, 1993

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined as second points.

1. Article 53(1) of the Urban Redevelopment Act provides that the purchaser of a building site by the implementation of a redevelopment project shall collect or pay as settlement money the amount equivalent to the difference when there is a difference between the price of the land owned before the implementation of the redevelopment project and the price of the building site after the completion of the redevelopment project. Article 53(3) of the Urban Redevelopment Act provides that the price of the previous land shall be determined by adding the price before the commencement of the redevelopment project, the price of the building site before the commencement of the redevelopment project, and the cost as prescribed by the Presidential Decree (Article 46 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act) of the cost before the commencement of the redevelopment project to the building site due to the redevelopment project. The purport of the above provision is that the settlement money due to the urban redevelopment project is not calculated based on the price at the time of the sale disposal for the difference between the sale price of the land and the previous land price at the time of the sale disposal for the difference between the sale price and the previous land price before the commencement of the redevelopment project.

2. Meanwhile, Article 30 (1) of the same Act provides that when a local government implements a redevelopment project, it shall prepare an implementation rule as prescribed by the Presidential Decree and obtain authorization from the Minister of Construction and Transportation. Article 31 (1) 8 and 9 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that the above implementation rule shall include matters concerning the method of assessing the value of the right to land and buildings, the management and disposal plan and liquidation, and Article 31 (2) of the same Act provides that the above implementation rule shall be prescribed by the Municipal Ordinance of the relevant local government. Accordingly, Articles 29 and 30 of the Housing Improvement and Redevelopment Project Ordinance (Seoul Metropolitan Government Ordinance No. 156) enacted by Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, which is the developer of the re-development project of this case, shall calculate the liquidation amount by the same method as that prescribed by the above Act. On the other hand, when a project is implemented by one's own redevelopment project, the liquidation amount shall be collected at an amount equivalent to the increase or decrease area of the land when the land substitution area is more than the area of the right.

3. In light of the general reality that a increase in the value of land within a re-development project area in excess of input costs has been created as a result of the implementation of the re-development project, it is sufficient to calculate the liquidation money to be collected in the case of the implementation of a project by a self-development project by the method of the above Ordinance, more than in accordance with the method of the above Act. In addition, where the laws governing urban redevelopment do not stipulate that the method of calculating liquidation money should be different depending on the difference between redevelopment method and the project implementer. Furthermore, in the case of a re-development project implemented by a local government as a result of its implementation, the method of assessing the value of land rights to buildings, the management disposition plan and liquidation should be formulated, but the criteria for calculating the liquidation money should not be inconsistent with the purport of Article 53 of the Urban Redevelopment Act, regardless of the difference between the redevelopment method and the method of calculating the liquidation money (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Nu2394, Apr. 26, 199).

Meanwhile, Article 52 of the Land Readjustment and Rearrangement Projects Act provides that the land substitution settlement money due to a land readjustment project shall be determined based on the time of land substitution disposition, but Article 65 (2) of the Urban Redevelopment Act provides that the provision on the land substitution in the Land Readjustment and Rearrangement Projects Act shall apply mutatis mutandis only in cases where there is no special provision in the same Act concerning the management and disposal plan. Article 53 of the Urban Redevelopment Act, which provides for the methods of calculating liquidation money, shall be the special provision on the land substitution in the Land Redevelopment and Rearrangement Projects Act. Therefore, Article 53 of the Urban Redevelopment Act shall apply to the land substitution due to urban redevelopment projects, such as this case, prior to Article 52 of the Land Redevelopment and Rearrangement Projects Act, Article 52 of the Urban Redevelopment Act shall take precedence over Article 52 of the

4. However, the court below held that the defendant's disposition of this case was lawful on the premise that the provisions of the above Ordinance concerning the calculation method of liquidation amount in the execution of a project by a self-development method are valid. In light of the above legal principles, the above judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the calculation method of liquidation amount in the redevelopment project, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The grounds for appeal on this point

Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Chief Justice Yoon-hee (Presiding Justice) (Presiding Justice), Kim Jong-soo, Justice Kim Jong-ho, Justice Kim Jong-ho, Justice Park Jong-ho, and Justice Lee Jae-hee-hee, Justice Lee Jong-hee, Justice Lee Jae-hee, Justice Lee Jong-hee, and Justice Lee Jae-hee