[1] The case holding that the registration of transfer of ownership made on the ground that the "forest of Gyeyang-dong citizen," which was the site of park facilities newly built by a land readjustment project, belongs to Seoul Special Metropolitan City on December 23, 198, which is the day following the date when a land substitution disposition is publicly announced under Article 63 of the former Land Readjustment Project Act, cannot be subject to transfer according to the above adjustment criteria with the property acquired on or after April 30, 198, which is the base date for the Si-owned property adjustment in accordance with the guidelines for Si-owned Property Adjustment and the Si-owned Property Adjustment Plan, and therefore, the registration of transfer of ownership made on the ground that the property to be transferred to an autonomous Gu in accordance with the former Local Autonomy Act and the Guidelines for Property Adjustment

[2] The case holding that since the Seoul Special Metropolitan City acquired the ownership of the "forest of Gyeyang-dong citizen," it cannot be deemed that there was an agreement between Seoul Special Metropolitan City and the relevant autonomous Gu to transfer the ownership of the above park separately from the procedure of the transfer of the ownership of the above park, since it reported the current status of the property to be transferred including the above park to the relevant autonomous Gu, and upon the request for entrustment and approval of the transfer registration of ownership of the above park, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City is recognized to have consented to the entrustment of the transfer registration of ownership of the above park

[1] The case holding that in case where the right relationship of the land included in the execution zone of the land readjustment project implemented pursuant to the former Land Readjustment Project Act (amended by Act No. 3775 of Dec. 15, 1984) was determined to be implemented by the land readjustment project, the right relationship of the land included in the execution zone of the land readjustment project implemented pursuant thereto should be grasped in relation to the relevant land readjustment project; in particular, in case where the land of public facilities became a new site due to the execution of a legitimate land readjustment project, the ownership of the land belongs to the State or local government according to the classification of the manager on the day following the date when a land substitution disposition was publicly announced under Article 63 of the same Act, and therefore, the "Yyang-dong citizen forest newly constructed in the park facilities due to the land readjustment project" belongs to the Seoul Special Metropolitan City on December 23, 198, which is the day following the date when a land substitution disposition was publicly announced, it shall not be subject to the transfer of property ownership under the former Local Autonomy Act (amended by Act No. 19630 of Apr. 198).

[2] The case holding that since the Seoul Special Metropolitan City acquired the ownership of the "forest of Gyeyang-dong citizen," it cannot be deemed that there was an agreement between Seoul Special Metropolitan City and the relevant autonomous Gu to transfer the ownership of the above park separately from the procedure of the transfer of the ownership of the above park, since it reported the current status of the property to be transferred including the above park to the relevant autonomous Gu, and upon the request of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City to entrust the registration of transfer of ownership of the above park, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City is recognized to have consented to the entrustment of the registration of transfer of ownership of the above park, and it cannot be deemed that

[1] Article 63 of the former Land Readjustment Projects Act (amended by Act No. 3775 of Dec. 15, 1984), Articles 3 and 5 of the former Local Autonomy Act (amended by Act No. 4162 of Dec. 30, 1989), Article 186 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 63 of the former Land Readjustment Projects Act (amended by Act No. 3775 of Dec. 15, 1984), Articles 3 and 5 of the former Local Autonomy Act (amended by Act No. 4162 of Dec. 30, 1989), Article 186 of the Civil Act

Seoul High Court Decision 201Na1484 decided May 1, 201

Seocho-gu (Law Firm Hank, Attorneys Shin Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

April 6, 2006

1. The defendant shall implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed by the Seoul District Court No. 100306, Oct. 10, 1991 with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet to the plaintiff.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the whole pleadings in the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4-1 through 4, 5-1, 5-2, 6, 7, 9, 1 through 4, 5-1, 2, and 9-1, 5-2, and 9-1, 5-1, 5-2, and 9-12.

A. The developments leading up to the creation of the instant park

(1) On April 11, 1981, pursuant to the former Housing Site Development Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 3357 of Jan. 29, 1981; hereinafter “former Housing Site Development Promotion Act”), the Minister of Construction and Transportation publicly announced the original land of Gangnam-gu, Seoul as a planned area for housing site development in Zone 3, and approved the project to be developed as a housing site. The Plaintiff, who is the project operator, started the housing site development work for the land within the above planned area including each land listed in the attached list (hereinafter “instant land”).

(2) On February 18, 1982, the Minister of Construction and Transportation approved a housing site development implementation plan to implement a land readjustment project under the former Land Readjustment Projects Act (amended by Act No. 3755, Dec. 15, 1984; hereinafter “former Land Readjustment Projects Act”) pursuant to Article 9(4) of the former Housing Site Development Promotion Act by the Minister of Construction and Transportation. The plaintiff established a land substitution plan for the above lot of land on March 30, 1983. On September 24, 1983, the plaintiff authorized a land substitution plan for the said lot of land readjustment project (hereinafter “instant land readjustment project”) and designated a land substitution plan for the above lot of land within the said rearrangement project district pursuant to Articles 47 and 56 of the former Land Readjustment Projects Act.

(3) In accordance with Article 6 of the Urban Park Act and Article 24 of the Urban Planning Act, the land category was changed to a park (hereinafter “instant park”) on September 17, 1987, as the Minister of Construction and Transportation determines to create a new green park in accordance with Article 6 of the Urban Park Act and Article 24 of the Urban Planning Act with respect to a housing site number P9-1 block land containing each of the instant land among the land in the instant land readjustment project zone.

(4) On December 22, 198, the Plaintiff finished the construction of the land readjustment project of this case, and was subject to a land substitution disposition under Article 61(4) of the former Land Readjustment Project Act, and the land substitution disposition was publicly announced under Article 61(5) of the same Act. Accordingly, the instant park was set with a parcel number of each of the instant land and each of the instant land, Seocho-gu, Yang Jae-dong, 200 Park 74,385 square meters, and 236 Park 146,396.5 square meters. The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership preservation on the instant park including each of the instant land on April 11, 1989 in the name of the Plaintiff.

(b) Estimated implementation of the autonomous Gu system following the amendment of the Local Autonomy Act, and the process of transferring the property owned by the plaintiff to the autonomous Gu;

(1) When the old Local Autonomy Act (amended by Act No. 4004 of Apr. 6, 198) was amended on May 1, 198, and the old autonomous system under the same Act was scheduled to be implemented on May 1, 198 (amended by Act No. 4004 of Apr. 6, 198), the former Local Autonomy Act (amended by Act No. 4004 of Apr. 6, 198), the former Local Autonomy Act (amended by Act No. 4004 of Apr. 6, 198) established a Do as a local government, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Si (Si), Eup (Eup), Myeon (Myeon) under the direct jurisdiction of the government, and the Do government is within the jurisdiction of the Do. However, the new provisions concerning the affairs of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City and the Do government (amended by Act No. 4004 of Apr. 6, 198), the new provisions concerning the affairs of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City and the Do government were established within its jurisdiction.

(2) Accordingly, on May 18, 1987, the Minister of Home Affairs issued guidelines for the adjustment of property between the Plaintiff and the autonomous Gu in order to prepare for the implementation of the Gu autonomous system. The above guidelines include ① the principle of the classification of the Si/Gun/Gu property, but the principle of the classification of the Si/Gun/Gu property is applied to the Gu, ② the property owned by the Gu is reverted to the Gu, ② the property owned by the entire citizens among the parks falling under the public property, and children’s parks for the management of the non-facilities neighborhood parks and the place of business are determined as the Si’s own, and children’s parks other than the

(3) On the other hand, on June 1, 1987, the Plaintiff established a plan for adjustment of property of Si on the basis of the above guidelines for adjustment of property of Si, and instructed each autonomous Gu including the Defendant to report the results of classification of property of Si by July 20, 1987. The above plan for adjustment of property of Si, however, stipulated that parks of the non-facilities are owned by the Si and the neighboring parks of the facility completed are owned by the Gu.

C. Details of the instant land relocation

(1) In transferring the Si/Gun/Gu-owned property to the defendant in accordance with the above Guidelines for Property Adjustment and the Si/Gun/Gu-owned property Adjustment Plan, the property subject to transfer first of all shall be comprehensively identified, and a written statement of transfer and acquisition pursuant thereto shall be prepared, and the pertinent autonomous Gu shall investigate the current status of the transferred property and request the plaintiff to commission and approve the registration of transfer, and the plaintiff shall examine the transferred property and conduct the business of transferring the property by the method of entrusting and approving the registration of transfer. On April 30, 198, the property whose classification of property has become known as of April 30, 198 shall be transferred and acquired separately after May 1,

(2) As a part of such transfer business, the Plaintiff sent an official door to the Plaintiff, including the Defendant, on December 24, 1990, when there is an unregistered property to the autonomous Gu including the Defendant, and the Defendant, on January 14, 1991, deemed that the instant park falls under the transferred property, and reported the current status of the property to be transferred including the instant park to the Plaintiff on September 27, 1991. The Plaintiff requested the Plaintiff to commission and approve the transfer registration of the instant park. On October 2, 1991, upon accepting the entrustment of the transfer registration of the instant park’s transfer of ownership, the Plaintiff, including the instant land, was the Seoul District Court No. 100306, Oct. 10, 191, the transfer registration of ownership in the name of the Defendant (hereinafter “transfer registration of ownership”).

(3) After that, the instant park is managed by the Defendant, and the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on Urban Park was amended on January 13, 1993, and provides that neighboring parks with a size of not less than 100,000 square meters shall be managed by the Plaintiff, on January 13, 1994, the Plaintiff received and managed the right to manage the instant park until now.

2. Determination:

A. The parties' assertion

The plaintiff, according to the above Guidelines for Adjustment of Property and Plan for Adjustment of Property of the Si, in transferring the Si's property owned by the plaintiff to the defendant, as of April 30, 198, the day before the enforcement of the old self-government system in the transfer of the Si's property owned by the plaintiff, the non-facilities green park among the Si's property as of the above base date shall be owned by the Si, and the neighboring green park which is completed the facility shall be owned by the Gu. Thus, the property acquired by the city after the base date for adjustment of the Si's property shall not be subject to transfer according to the above Adjustment Criteria. Since the ownership of the park of this case belongs to the plaintiff on December 23, 198, which is the day following the day when the disposition of replotting was announced pursuant to Article 63 of the Land Adjustment and Rearrangement Projects Act, it is impossible to be subject to transfer under the above Guidelines for Adjustment of Property of the Si's own property, and therefore the defendant's registration of transfer of ownership of each of the land of this case shall be null and void.

As to this, the defendant, first, since the park of this case is reverted to the plaintiff on November 30, 1986 after completion of the facility under Article 25 (1) of the former Housing Site Development Promotion Act, it is clear that the park of this case constitutes a neighboring park that the plaintiff had already acquired the ownership at the time of the above date for adjustment of Si-owned Property and thus is to be transferred to the defendant according to the above adjustment criteria. Thus, the transfer registration of ownership of this case is lawful and effective in accordance with the above adjustment guidelines and plans. Second, even if the plaintiff acquired the park of this case on December 23, 198 after the above date for adjustment of Si-owned Property, the plaintiff later notified the defendant of transfer of state-owned Property, and the defendant reported the transfer of state-owned property to the plaintiff including the park of this case, and the plaintiff consented to the transfer registration of ownership. Accordingly, the transfer registration of ownership of this case is asserted to be valid in accordance with the substantive legal relationship.

(b) Markets:

(1) We first examine the time when the plaintiff acquired ownership of the park of this case. The land of this case, including the land of this case, was publicly announced as a planned area for housing site development in Gangnam-gu Seoul on April 11, 1981. The above housing site development project on February 18, 1982 was approved by the housing site development implementation plan to be implemented by a land readjustment project under the former Housing Site Development Promotion Act in accordance with Article 9 (4) of the former Housing Site Development Promotion Act. Accordingly, the plaintiff established a replotting plan on March 30, 1983 to implement the above land of this case on September 24, 1983, and the land of this case was newly authorized to implement a replotting plan for the land of this case on September 24, 1983 and the land of this case, which was newly implemented by the land rearrangement project of this case under Article 47 and Article 56 of the former Land Readjustment Projects Act, and the land of this case, which was newly implemented within the land rearrangement project of this case on December 22, 1, 6.

Therefore, the park of this case is a property acquired after April 30, 198, which is the base date for the adjustment of property under the above guidelines for adjustment of property for the trial and the plan for adjustment of property for the trial, and thus it cannot be subject to transfer according to the above adjustment criteria. Thus, the registration of transfer of ownership of this case made on the ground that it is the property to be transferred to the defendant according to the former Local Autonomy Act, the Guidelines for Adjustment of Property for the trial, and the plan for adjustment of property for the trial is the registration of invalidity

(2) Next, we examine the Defendant’s assertion that the registration of transfer of ownership in this case is consistent with the substantive relationship. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s acquisition of ownership in this case’s park and the autonomous Gu after transfer of ownership in this case’s park to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant reported the current status of property to be transferred including the instant park, and upon the request of the Plaintiff to commission and approve the transfer registration of ownership in this case’s park, the Plaintiff consented to the entrustment of the transfer registration of ownership in this case’s park. However, the above procedure is merely a part of the business to transfer the Plaintiff’s own property to the Defendant in accordance with the guidelines and plan for the adjustment of property in the city’s own autonomy. Thus, the above fact alone cannot be deemed as having agreed to transfer the ownership of each real estate in this case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case is consistent with the substantive relation. There is no evidence to acknowledge

3. Conclusion

Thus, the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration of this case, which was made in the name of the defendant with respect to each real estate of this case, which is part of the park of this case. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case of this case is justified and it is so decided

[Attachment] List: omitted.

Judges Kim Jae-sik (Presiding Judge)