[1] In a case where the Seoul Housing and Urban Corporation obtains permission for development activities to install new public facilities or to establish public facilities replacing existing public facilities or becomes an implementer of a development project with authorization for an implementation plan for an urban/Gun planning facility project, whether such permission may be deemed to be an "case where the implementer of a development project is an administrative agency" under Article 65 (1) of the National Land Planning

[2] In accordance with Article 65(1) and (2) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, if the previous public facilities are to be reverted or transferred to a project implementer without compensation, not only the so-called complex development project whose business subject to permission for development activities is broad area, but also the case where the future public facilities are to be “a case where their use is discontinued by the implementation of the relevant development project” (affirmative)

[1] In light of the language, content, and structure of Articles 65(1), (2), and (3) and 99 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”), if the Seoul Housing Corporation obtains permission for development to install new public facilities or to install public facilities replacing the existing public facilities or becomes an implementer of a development project with authorization for an implementation plan for an urban or Gun planning facility project, it may be deemed that the development project operator is an administrative agency pursuant to Article 65(1) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act.

(1) The Seoul Housing and Urban Corporation shall be a public corporation established by fully investing in the Seoul Special Metropolitan City pursuant to the Local Public Enterprises Act and may be deemed an administrative agency delegated by the Seoul Special Metropolitan City to implement development projects through its establishment (Article 2 (1) (b) of the Administrative Procedures Act).

(2) Article 65 (1) and (2) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act provides that if the executor of a development project is an administrative agency, the existing public facilities shall be reverted gratuitously, while if the executor of a development project is not an administrative agency, the existing public facilities shall be assigned gratuitously, and the difference is determined by stipulating that the existing public facilities may be transferred gratuitously.

Meanwhile, Article 86(5) and (7) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act provides that, in principle, a person who is not a Special Metropolitan City Mayor, Metropolitan City Mayor, Special Self-Governing City Mayor, Special Self-Governing Province Governor, head of a Si/Gun, or the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport intends to be designated as an implementer of an urban/Gun planning facility project shall meet the requirements prescribed by Presidential Decree concerning the size of land subject to a project and the ratio of landowners’ consent, but, in cases of the State, local governments, public institutions prescribed by Presidential Decree, and other persons prescribed by Presidential Decree, such land ownership and consent requirements shall not be required. Article 96(4)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act on delegation provides that local

As such, the purpose of the National Land Planning Act stipulating the requirements for land ownership and consent as the requirements for designating a private person as the executor of an urban or Gun planning facility project is to supplement the public nature of an urban or Gun planning facility project implemented by a private person and to control a private person’s unilateral acceptance. In the national land planning Act itself, local government-invested public corporations are already treated equally as a case where an urban or Gun planning facility project

(3) Similar to Article 65(1) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, Article 97(1) and (2) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), which provides for a new infrastructure for rearrangement and a system for gratuitous reversion and transfer of existing infrastructure for rearrangement (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) separate cases where a rearrangement project is implemented and where a project is implemented by a person who is not the head of a Si/Gun, etc. or a project implementer who implements a rearrangement project. Article 2 subparag. 10 of the Urban Improvement Act defines “Land and Housing Corporation, etc.” as “the Korea Land and Housing Corporation established under the Korea Land and Housing Corporation Act or a local public corporation established to implement a housing project pursuant to the Local Public Enterprises Act,” thereby treating the same as the case where a

④ Article 65(1) and (2) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act clearly separates “Where a person who has obtained permission for development acts is an administrative agency” and “where a person who has obtained permission for development acts is not an administrative agency.” Therefore, it must be confirmed that an administrative agency or an administrative agency is not an administrative agency prior to obtaining permission for development activities. Likewise, even in cases where Article 65 is applied mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 99 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, it must be confirmed that the administrative agency or an administrative agency is not an administrative agency prior to being designated as the implementer of an urban or Gun planning facility project.” Therefore, it should be deemed that the executor does not constitute an “administrative agency” as prescribed by Articles 99 and 65(1) of

[2] Article 65(1) and (2) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”) does not apply to all development projects subject to permission for development activities (including cases deemed to be granted), but apply only to so-called “combined development projects” subject to wide area project zones. The former public facilities should be deemed to be gratuitously reverted or transferable to a project implementer when they fall into cases where use is discontinued due to the implementation of the relevant development project. The reasons are as follows.

(1) In addition to the National Land Planning Act, the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, the Urban Development Act, the Housing Site Development Promotion Act, the Housing Act, and the Industrial Sites and Development Act provide for the free reversion and transfer system of public facilities newly installed in addition to the National Land Planning Act (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “system for free reversion and transfer of public facilities”), and the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, the Urban Development Act, the Housing Site Development Promotion, the Act on the Industrial Sites and Development, etc., all of them are related to the complex development project in a broad area. In principle, an implementer of a complex development project shall acquire land at a cost in a manner that purchases or expropriates land within the project area. However, the new and old public facilities gratuitously reversion and transfer system provides for special cases concerning the acquisition and disposal of State and public administrative property

(2) In a complex development project, in order to secure the public nature and the recovery of development gains, an implementer is required to formulate a project plan to expand public facilities, such as roads and parks, within the project zone. The legislative purpose of “the new public facilities reversion system” is to impose on the implementer of a development project the duty of installing new public facilities directly considering that the implementation of the development project causes the demand for new public facilities in the project zone, and at the same time, revert it to the management authority of the State or a local government without compensation, thereby securing the ownership of new public facilities, and effectively maintaining and managing them so as to make it appropriate for the public use, thereby ensuring the smooth maintenance and management of public facilities. Through this, the existing public facilities can be expanded, their location may be adjusted, and the new public facilities that had not been previously installed shall also be installed.

(3) The legislative purpose of the former public facilities system is to make up for some of the property losses and expenses incurred by the operator of a development project, which is caused by the fact that public facilities newly installed are gratuitously reverted to the management agency, within the reasonable scope.

If an implementer of a development project intends to gratuitously revert or transfer the existing public facilities to the implementer of the development project, it should be premised on the fact that the implementer can dispose of or redeem the existing public facilities by acquiring the economic value equivalent to the land price and by selling them later, by using the existing public facilities as the site for the relevant development project, which is impossible without disuse of the existing public facilities. Therefore, if the existing public facilities are to be gratuitously reverted pursuant to Article 65(1) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, it should be deemed that “the future public facilities should be “the use of the relevant development project is abolished by the implementation of the relevant development project.”

(4) For example, when the implementer of a development project adjusts the route or expands the width of a road by straightening the existing road, etc., the straightened road or the expanded road should belong to the road management authority, but the site of the existing road no longer necessary due to straightening should belong to the implementer and be able to utilize it for the development project. To do so, the road management authority shall determine the disuse of the existing road in accordance with the State Property Act and the Public Property and Commodity Management Act (hereinafter “State Property and Public Property Act”), transfer the site of the road to the implementer, and the implementer shall undergo a series of process of donation in order to revert the new road to the road management

The legislative purpose of the new and old public facilities system is to promote the simplification and efficiency of the handling of relevant administrative affairs by allowing the effect of the change of ownership of new and old public facilities to occur directly by the legal provisions at the time of completion of the development project, not through individual legal acts, without the need to go through such a series of processes.

(5) Article 65(3) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act provides that “A permit to engage in development activities including matters concerning the reversion of public facilities pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (2) shall hear the opinion of the management agency to which the relevant public facilities belong.” This merely does not stipulate “agreement or consultation” of the management agency to which the existing public facilities belong, but rather provides “Procedures for hearing opinions”, and thus does not necessarily mean that such procedures have not undergone such procedures for seeking opinions.

According to the State-Owned and Public Property Act, administrative property shall not be sold or disposed of unless it is disused, and the disuse of administrative property shall be limited to the office of administration or office of general administration (Articles 22, 27, and 40 of the State Property Act, and Articles 11 and 19 of the Public Property and Commodity Management Act). The provision that an administrative agency in charge of authorization for development projects in the new and old system of gratuitous reversion or transfer of public facilities provides that the administrative agency may grant authorization for development projects including matters concerning disuse or gratuitous reversion or transfer of public facilities without the consent of the office of administration of public facilities shall be deemed as a result of taking into account that the public interest is not important because the overall implementation of development projects of complex type public facilities is expanded and the public interest is promoted. If such “specific nature of complex type development projects” is not premised, it is difficult for the administrative agency that has authorized to grant authorization for development projects to determine the disuse of administrative property without the consent of the office of administration or office of general administration.

(6) Where a complex development project is not a complex development project, the land necessary for the implementation of the development project shall, even if it is intended to install public facilities, be paid the price therefor by the project implementer in accordance with the private contract or public law and acquired at a cost.

[1] Articles 65(1), (2) and (3), 86(5) and (7), 99, Article 2(1)(b) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, Article 49, Article 76 of the Local Public Enterprises Act, Articles 2 subparag. 10, and 97(1) and (2) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, Article 96(4)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act / [2] Articles 65(1), (2) and (3), and 99 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, Articles 22, 27, and 40 of the State Property Act, Articles 11, and 19 of the Public Property and Commodity Management Act

[1] [2] Constitutional Court en banc Decision 2014Hun-Ba156 Decided March 26, 2015 (Hun-Gong22, 521) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 2016Du35120 Decided July 11, 2017 (Gong2017Ha, 1637) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2006Du11149 Decided April 13, 2007 (Gong2009Ha, 1189Ha, 209Ha, 2009Ha, 1189) Supreme Court Decision 2017Du56476 Decided October 25, 2018 (Gong2018Ha, 2257)

Seoul Housing and Urban Corporation (former Name: E.S. LLC, Attorneys Kim Yong-sik, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Republic of Korea (Law Firm LLC, Attorneys Bailment-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2016Na2009221 decided August 26, 2016

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Case summary and key issue

A. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the following facts are revealed.

(1) On February 23, 2006, the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City determined and publicly announced an urban management plan concerning the installation, maintenance, and improvement of roads, which are urban planning facilities, in order to expand roads around the distribution complex in south-dong area.

(2) On June 2, 2011, the Plaintiff obtained the designation of a project implementer and the authorization of an implementation plan for a three-dimensional dimensional zone facility construction project, which combines the roads connecting the Seoul metropolitan metropolitan metropolitan cycle Highway with the transmission subjects and Sungnam-si (hereinafter “instant project”) from the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City on the said urban management plan.

(3) The land owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant land”) among total 6,669 square meters in the business area of the instant business is the total of 19 square meters (1,097 square meters in the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport + 7,089 square meters in the jurisdiction of the Ministry of National Defense).

(4) On August 6, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport with respect to 12 lots of land under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport among the instant land, and paid KRW 1,649,453,340 on August 21, 2014. On September 26, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Minister of National Defense with respect to 3,089 lots of land under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of National Defense and paid KRW 5,409,96,660 on the same day.

(5) At the time when the instant project implementation plan and each of the above sales contracts were concluded, the instant land was installed and used by the 545-dong, Songpa-gu, Songpa-gu, Seoul with a starting point from 545 to 647, Songpa-gu, Songpa-gu, Seoul. The purpose of the instant project is to maintain the roads on the ground as they are, and install a multi-level intersection (large 19 meters wide, 19 meters long, 275 meters underground lanes) on the ground.

B. The key issue of the instant case is whether the instant land, which is the previous public facilities, installed with a ground-based road in accordance with Article 65(1) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”), should be reverted to the Plaintiff as the implementer, and thus, whether the Defendant should return the purchase price received from each of the above sales contracts to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

2. Whether the Plaintiff constitutes an administrative agency under Article 65 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act

A. According to Article 65 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, where a person who has obtained permission for development activities (hereinafter “development project implementer”) is an administrative agency, if he/she establishes new public facilities or public facilities replacing existing public facilities, notwithstanding the State Property Act and the Public Property and Commodity Management Act (hereinafter “National and Public Property Act”), the newly installed public facilities shall gratuitously vest in the management agency to manage such facilities, and the existing public facilities shall gratuitously vest in the development project implementer (Article 1). In cases where a development project implementer is not an administrative agency, the newly installed public facilities shall gratuitously vest in the management agency to manage such facilities, and the public facilities, the use of which by development activities, may be gratuitously transferred to the development project implementer to the extent equivalent to the installation cost of the newly installed public facilities (Article 2(2)). In cases where an administrative agency in charge of permission for development activities intends to include matters concerning the reversion of public facilities under paragraphs (1) and (2) in advance (main sentence).

Meanwhile, according to Article 99 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, Article 65 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the construction of new public facilities or public facilities replacing existing public facilities by an urban or Gun planning facility project.

B. Examining the following circumstances in light of the language, content, and structure of the above provisions, where the Plaintiff obtained permission for development to install a new public facility or to install a public facility replacing the existing public facility, or becomes an implementer of a development project with authorization for an implementation plan for an urban or Gun planning facility project, it may be deemed that the development project implementer is an administrative agency.

(1) The Plaintiff is a public corporation (local public corporation) established by fully investing in the Seoul Special Metropolitan City pursuant to the Local Public Enterprises Act, and can be deemed an administrative agency delegated by the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor with the authority to implement the development project through its establishment (Article 2(1)(b) of the Administrative Procedures Act).

(2) Article 65(1) and (2) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act provides that if an executor of a development project is an administrative agency, the existing public facilities shall be reverted gratuitously. However, if an executor of a development project is not an administrative agency, the existing public facilities may be transferred gratuitously, and the difference is determined by stipulating that the executor of the development project may be transferred gratuitously, taking into account the legal status of the executor, the degree of public nature of the project, the degree of involvement of the traditional supervisory administrative agency, etc. (see Constitutional Court en banc Decision 201

Meanwhile, Article 86(5) and (7) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act provides that, in principle, a person who is not a Special Metropolitan City Mayor, Metropolitan City Mayor, Special Self-Governing City Mayor, Special Self-Governing Province Governor, head of a Si/Gun, or the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport intends to be designated as an implementer of an urban/Gun planning facility project shall meet the requirements prescribed by Presidential Decree concerning the size of land subject to a project and the ratio of landowners’ consent, but, in cases of the State, local governments, public institutions prescribed by Presidential Decree, and other persons prescribed by Presidential Decree, such land ownership and consent requirements shall not be required. Article 96(4)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act on delegation provides that a local public corporation

As such, the purpose of the National Land Planning Act stipulating the requirements for land ownership and consent as the requirements for designating a private person as the implementer of an urban or Gun planning facility project is to supplement the public nature of an urban or Gun planning facility project implemented by a private person and to control a private person’s unilateral expropriation (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Du35120, Jul. 11, 2017). In addition, the National Land Planning Act provides that a local government-invested public corporation is not a private person, but a private person, and a local government is equally treated as an urban

(3) Similar to Article 65(1) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, Article 97(1) and Article 97(2) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), which provides for a new infrastructure for rearrangement and a system for gratuitous reversion and transfer of existing infrastructure for rearrangement (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) separate cases where a rearrangement project is implemented and where a “head of a Si/Gun, etc. or a project implementer who is not a head of a Gun, etc. or a land housing construction project” implements a rearrangement project. Article 2 subparag. 10 of the Urban Improvement Act defines “Land and Housing Corporation, etc.” as “Korea Land and Housing Corporation established pursuant to the Korea Land and Housing Corporation Act or a local public corporation established to implement a housing project pursuant to the Local Public Enterprises Act” and treats

(4) Article 65(1) and (2) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act clearly separates “where a person who has obtained permission for development acts is an administrative agency” and “where a person who has obtained permission for development acts is not an administrative agency.” Therefore, it must be confirmed that an administrative agency or an administrative agency is not an administrative agency prior to obtaining permission for development activities. Likewise, even in cases where Article 65 is applied mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 99 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, it must be confirmed that the administrative agency or an administrative agency is not an administrative agency prior to being designated as the executor of an urban/Gun planning facility project.” Therefore, the “where an executor acquires the status of an administrative agency entrusted with administrative authority only by designating as the executor of an urban/Gun planning facility project” should be

C. The lower court determined that the Plaintiff constituted an administrative agency under Article 65(1) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act was partially inappropriate at the time of the explanation of its reasoning, but its conclusion is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the meaning of “administrative agency” under Article 65(1)

3. Whether Article 99 and Article 65 (1) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act applies to the project in this case

A. Articles 65(1) and 65(2) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act do not apply to all development projects subject to permission for development activities (including cases deemed granted), but apply only to so-called “combined development projects” subject to wide area project zones, and should be deemed to be subject to gratuitous reversion or transfer to a project implementer when the existing public facilities fall under the cases where use is discontinued due to the implementation of the relevant development project. The reasons are as follows.

(1) In addition to the National Land Planning Act, there are the Act on the Improvement of Urban Areas, the Urban Development Act, the Housing Site Development Promotion Act, the Housing Act, the Industrial Sites and Development Act, and the Industrial Sites and Development Act, which provide for the free reversion and transfer system of public facilities newly installed and the free reversion and transfer system of existing public facilities (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the system for free reversion and transfer of new and old public facilities”), and all of them are related to the complex development project in a broad area. In principle, an implementer of a complex development project shall acquire land at a cost by means of purchase or expropriation, etc. of land within the project area. However, in the case of national and public general property, the new and old system for free reversion and transfer of public facilities provides for special cases concerning the acquisition and disposal of State and public administrative property among them. In the case of national and public general property, it must undergo the procedure

(2) In a complex development project, at the level of securing the public nature and recovering development gains, an implementer is required to establish a project plan with a content that expands public facilities, such as roads and parks, within the project zone. The legislative purpose of the “new public facilities reversion system” is to impose on the implementer of the development project directly a duty to install new public facilities, taking into account that the implementation of the development project causes demand for the new public facilities in the project zone, and at the same time, to revert the new public facilities to the State or the management authority of the local government without compensation, thereby securing the ownership of the new public facilities, and effectively maintaining and managing them so as to make them fit for the public use, thereby achieving the task of “contributing the smooth securing and efficient maintenance and management of the public facilities” (see Constitutional Court en banc Decision 2014Hun-Ba156, Mar. 26, 2015). The scale of the existing public facilities is expanded, the location thereof is adjusted, and the existing

(3) The legislative purpose of “former Public Facilities Reversion and Transfer System” is to compensate for some of the property losses and costs incurred by a development project implementer due to the fact that public facilities newly installed are gratuitously reverted to the management authority within the reasonable scope (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Du1149, Apr. 13, 2007, etc.).

If an implementer of a development project intends to gratuitously revert or transfer the existing public facilities to the implementer of the development project, it should be premised on the fact that the implementer can dispose of or redeem the existing public facilities by acquiring the economic value equivalent to the land price and by selling them later, by using the existing public facilities as the site for the relevant development project, which is impossible without any disuse of the existing public facilities. Therefore, if the existing public facilities are to be gratuitously reverted pursuant to Article 65(1) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, it should be deemed that “where the previous public facilities become disused by the implementation of the relevant development project, as is clearly stipulated in Article 65(2).”

(4) In the event that a development project implementer adjusts the route by straightening the existing road or expands the width of the road, the straightened road or expanded road should belong to the road management authority, but the site of the existing road no longer necessary due to straightening should belong to the project implementer so that it can be utilized for the development project. To this end, the road management authority determines the abolition of use of the existing road, transfers the site of the road to the project implementer, and the implementer must undergo a series of processes of donation in order to revert the new road to the road management authority.

The legislative purpose of the new and old public facilities system is to promote the simplification and efficiency of the handling of relevant administrative affairs by allowing the effect of the change of ownership of new and old public facilities to occur directly by the legal provisions at the time of completion of the development project, not through individual legal acts, without the need to go through such a series of processes.

(5) Article 65(3) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act provides that “A permit to engage in development activities including matters concerning the reversion of public facilities pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (2) shall hear the opinion of the management agency to which the relevant public facilities belong.” This merely does not stipulate “agreement or consultation” of the management agency to which the existing public facilities belong, but rather provides “Procedures for hearing opinions”. Thus, it does not necessarily mean that such hearing procedures have not been conducted, but does not mean that they are subject to gratuitous reversion or transfer of the existing public facilities (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da18174, Jun. 25, 2009, etc.).

According to the State and Public Property Act, administrative property shall not be sold or disposed of unless it is disused, and the disuse of administrative property shall be limited to the office of administration or office of general administration (Articles 22, 27, and 40 of the State Property Act, and Articles 11 and 19 of the Public Property Act). The provision that an administrative agency in charge of authorization and permission for development projects in the new and old public facilities free reversion or transfer system provides that the administrative agency may grant authorization and permission for development projects which include matters concerning disuse or gratuitous reversion or transfer of public facilities without the consent of the office of administration of public facilities shall be deemed as a result of considering that the overall expansion of public facilities through the implementation of complex development projects and the enhancement of public interest is not important. If such “specific nature of complex development projects” is not premised, it is difficult for the authorizing administrative agency to determine the disuse of administrative property without the consent of the office of administration or office of general administration in charge of public facilities or the office of general administration in the order of the State and Public Property Act.

(6) In cases where a complex development project is not a complex development project, the land necessary for the implementation of the development project must be paid and acquired at a cost by the project implementer in accordance with the private contract or public law, even if the public facilities are to be installed (see Supreme Court Decision 2017Du56476, Oct. 25, 2018, etc.).

B. We examine the above facts in light of the aforementioned legal principles.

The instant project is not a “combined development project,” the project area of which is a wide area, but it is merely a project that installs a three-dimensional intersection in the underground without disuse of the existing public facilities (e.g., the central roads), and thus does not constitute a development project governed by Articles 99 and 65(1) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the instant project constitutes a development project governed by Articles 99 and 65(1) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act solely on the ground that the existing road installed on the ground of the instant land and the multi-level intersection newly installed on the ground of the instant land constitutes a public facility under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, and that the instant land belongs to the Plaintiff, a development project executor, free of charge. However, the lower court concluded that each of the instant land, which the Plaintiff concluded with the Defendant, was null and void against Articles 99 and 65(1) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, and that the Defendant was liable to return the total purchase price of KRW 7,059,420,000,

The lower judgment erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on “the system of gratuitous reversion and transfer of new and old public facilities” under the National Land Planning Act, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Jung-hwa (Presiding Justice)