(a)Invalidation of authorization of an implementation plan where the procedure for acquiring rights to the land owned by another person required for the urban planning project located within the urban planning zone is not prior;

(b)Requirements for "free reversion of public facilities" under the former part of Article 83, Paragraph 2, of the Urban Planning Act;

(a) In a case where there are lands owned by others necessary for the urban planning project within the urban planning zone, the urban planning project operator shall take over them under a private contract at the latest within the project execution period, or acquire without fail the right to the land through the procedure of expropriation under the Land Expropriation Act, and the validity of the authorization of the implementation plan itself shall be invalidated unless the procedure

(b)The provision of free reversion of public facilities under the former part of Article 83(2) of the Urban Planning Act shall apply only when an urban planning project executor who is not an administrative agency acquires the right to land needed for the public facilities and installs and completes the project

(a) Article 30 of the Urban Planning Act;

Kim Jong-sung et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant Kim Yang-nam

Attorney Kim Jong-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant of the Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 80Na3380 delivered on November 14, 1980

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

1. Judgment on the first ground for appeal

According to the facts that the court below lawfully established the right to the above land for the 19th anniversary of the fact that the construction of the new urban planning project was carried out by the operator of the 19th urban planning project and the 2nd new urban planning project under the title of the 19th Urban Planning Act (the 1st 7th 1st 2nd 7th 2nd 1st 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 197th 2nd 197th 2nd 2nd 197th 2nd 3rd 1st 2nd 2nd 196th 1st 2nd 2nd 1st 2nd 2nd 2nd 3rd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 3rd 2nd 1st 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd 3rd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 1972nd 3rd 2nd 3rd 2nd 2nd 2nd 3th 3th 2nd 2nd 3rd.

2. Determination on the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3

According to the above facts, the court below held that the defendant occupied and managed the land of this case as children's play ground from July 18, 1974 to the child's play ground without any legal title, and ordered the defendant to return the amount equivalent to the rent from January 1, 1975 to the completion of delivery of this case's land as unjust enrichment. On a comparison with the records, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the violation of the evidence law or the scope of return of unjust enrichment, such as the theory of lawsuit, and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the evidence law or the scope of return of unjust enrichment. The court below's determination that the defendant occupied the land of this case as children's play ground in light of the facts acknowledged by the court below, it is clear that the court below recognized that the defendant occupied the above land in good faith, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the bona fide possession. Thus, the court below's decision is without merit under the premise that the defendant's right to acquire the above land as a bona fide occupant.

Therefore, all arguments are without merit, and they are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Jong-woo (Presiding Justice)