[1] The time when the compensation details, in principle, such as the method and amount of compensation for the relocation expenses for the tenants of residential buildings under the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (the date the project implementation plan is approved and published)

[2] Where the project implementation period stipulated in the project implementation plan established by the maintenance and improvement project association established under the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents has expired, whether the legal effect of the project implementation plan including the purchase and expropriation of land conducted within the project implementation period is retroactively invalidated (negative)

[3] Criteria for determining persons eligible for compensation for housing relocation expenses to tenants of residential buildings under the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents

[4] The starting point of counting the liability for the relocation of a residential building to be paid to the revenueer of the residential building moving following the implementation of the public works and the delayed performance of the director's non-payment obligation (=the date following the obligor

[1] Article 40(1) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (wholly amended by Act No. 14567, Feb. 8, 2017; see current Article 65(1)); Article 78(5) and (9) of the former Act on the Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works (Amended by Act No. 11017, Aug. 4, 201; Articles 54(2) and 55(2) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works (Amended by Act No. 427, Jan. 2, 2012); Article 28(1) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (wholly amended by Act No. 14567, Feb. 8, 2017; see current Article 50(1) and (4) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Acquisition of Land and Compensation Therefor

[1] [3] Supreme Court Decision 2010Du5332 Decided November 11, 2010 (Gong2010Ha, 2274) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 2010Du7475 Decided April 26, 2012 (Gong2012Sang, 871) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 2015Du4673 Decided October 26, 2017 / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2016Du34905 Decided December 1, 2016 (Gong2017Sang, 126) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 2009Du16824 decided September 9, 2010 (Gong2010Ha, 1920)

Plaintiff 1 and one other (Attorney Park Jae-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

○○ District Housing Development and Improvement Project Association (Attorneys Kim Tae-tae et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2017Nu75271 decided November 14, 2018

Of the judgment below, the part against the defendant against the plaintiff 1 and the part against the defendant against the plaintiff 2 are reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. The plaintiffs' appeals are all dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

A. In light of the language, content, and purport of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (wholly amended by Act No. 14567, Feb. 8, 2017; hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), Article 78(5) and (9) of the former Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation Therefor (amended by Act No. 11017, Aug. 4, 201); Article 54(2) and Article 55(2) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation Therefor (amended by Ordinance No. 427, Jan. 2, 2012; hereinafter “Enforcement Rule of the Land Compensation Act”), compensation for housing relocation expenses for tenants of residential buildings under the Urban Improvement Act shall be deemed to have been paid to tenants of residential buildings within the relevant improvement zone as at the time of announcement of the project plan for relocation of 20 years or more (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016 years or more).

Meanwhile, even if the project implementation period stipulated in the project implementation plan established by a maintenance and improvement project association established under the Act on the Improvement of Urban Areas, the legal effect of the project implementation plan, including the purchase and expropriation of land conducted within the project implementation period, cannot be retroactively invalidated (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Du34905, Dec. 1, 2016).

B. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the following circumstances are revealed.

1) On August 22, 2008, the head of Bupyeong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City announced the public perusal for the establishment of the improvement plan for the instant project on May 31, 2010, and announced the project implementation plan on June 4, 2010 (hereinafter “public announcement”).

2) The project implementation period of the instant project according to the public notice in 2010 is 48 months from the project implementation authorization date ( May 31, 2010).

3) On December 14, 2015, the head of Bupyeong-gu Incheon Metropolitan Government changed the project implementation period from the project implementation authorization date ( December 14, 2015) to 60 months from the project implementation authorization date (hereinafter “public notice in 2015”).

4) On July 13, 2016, the head of Bupyeong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City rendered an administrative disposition plan and a public notice of the instant project that was modified by the public notice of July 13, 2016.

C. Examining these facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the details of compensation, such as the Plaintiff 1’s housing relocation cost, and the amount of compensation for each director’s expenses against the Plaintiffs, as the tenants of the residential building in the relevant improvement zone, are, in principle, finalized on June 4, 2010, which is the date the project implementation plan

On the other hand, housing relocation expenses and director expenses paid to tenants of residential buildings moving from the implementation of public works shall be deemed to have the nature of funds paid on the social security level for tenants who will suffer special difficulties due to the policy purpose to facilitate the implementation of the project by encouraging early relocation of tenants residing in the relevant public works implementation zone, and due to the relocation of their residence. Unless there are special circumstances, such as the project implementation plan which is the basis of compensation, such as relocation expenses, becomes void automatically or the court's final and conclusive decision, there is no need to compensate the tenants of residential buildings in the relevant improvement zone. Even if the project implementation period prescribed in the project implementation plan established by the maintenance and improvement project association established by the Act on the Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents established by the Act on the Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, even if the project implementation period set by the project implementation plan becomes invalid retroactively, the legal effect of the effective project implementation plan and its-based project implementation plan cannot be deemed null and void retroactively (see the above Decision 2016Du34905, supra).

D. Nevertheless, the lower court: (a) deemed that the Plaintiffs’ residential relocation expenses or the Plaintiffs’ public notice of approval for the implementation of a project is a public notice in 2015, on the grounds that the public notice of 2010 was invalidated on June 1, 2014 following the expiration of the project implementation period; and (b) calculated the Plaintiffs’ residential relocation expenses and the Plaintiffs’ amount of compensation for directors based on the public notice of 2015 ( December 14, 2015). In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the invalidation of the approval of the project implementation plan, the relocation expenses under the Urban Improvement Act, and the date of calculating the director’s expense, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The Defendant’

2. Regarding the plaintiffs' grounds of appeal

A. As to the plaintiff 2's relocation expenses

1) Compensation for housing relocation expenses for the tenants of residential buildings under the Urban Improvement Act shall be made for those who have resided in the relevant improvement zone for at least three months at the time of the public inspection and announcement of the improvement plan, when it becomes known that the residents, etc. would be implementing the improvement project due to the public announcement of the improvement plan (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du16824, Sept. 9, 2010). However, in cases of tenants who moved in an unauthorized building, etc., they shall have resided in the relevant improvement zone for at least one year at the time of the public announcement of the above public inspection in accordance with the proviso to Article

2) The lower court dismissed Plaintiff 2’s claim for the cost of housing relocation on the ground that Plaintiff 2 did not have resided in the rearrangement zone of the instant project for more than one year, based on the date of the public announcement of the instant improvement plan ( August 22, 2008) on which Plaintiff 2 resided in the improvement zone.

3) Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal doctrine and the record, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the criteria for determining persons eligible for compensation for housing relocation costs, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence

B. As to the initial date of the plaintiff 1's relocation expenses and delay damages for the plaintiffs' moving expenses

1) Inasmuch as there are no special provisions in the relevant statutes with respect to the housing relocation expenses and the due date for which the obligation to pay director expenses is to be paid to the tenants of residential buildings moving following the implementation of public works, the obligor is liable for delay of performance from the date following the receipt of the demand for performance (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Du7475, Apr. 26, 2012).

2) The lower court dismissed the Plaintiffs’ claim for damages for delay from the date following the announcement date of 2015 (2015 December 15, 2015) to the delivery date of a copy of the instant complaint on the grounds that it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiffs filed a claim against the Defendant for the payment of housing relocation expenses and director expenses before filing the instant lawsuit.

3) Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal doctrine and the record, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the relocation cost and delay damages in moving expenses.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, among the judgment below, the part against the defendant against the plaintiff 1 and the part against the defendant against the plaintiff 2 are reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The plaintiffs' appeals are all dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Sang-ok (Presiding Justice)