Where E.S. Corporation is delegated or entrusted with the authority under the housing site development project, including the authority to formulate relocation measures, by the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor, the operator of the housing site development project, the case that the defendant in a lawsuit seeking cancellation of the disposition regarding relocation measures

The case holding that the defendant shall be the EP Corporation in filing a lawsuit seeking cancellation of the disposition regarding the relocation measures taken in the name of EP Corporation where EP works are delegated or entrusted with the authority under the housing site development project site development project by the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor, which is the implementer of the housing site development project, including the authority to establish relocation measures.

Article 95 (2) of the former Local Autonomy Act (amended by Act No. 8423 of May 11, 2007) (see current Article 104 (2)), Article 19 (1) of the former Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Establishment and Operation of Urban Development Corporation (amended by Ordinance No. 3639 of July 26, 199), Article 13 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Plaintiff 1 and one other (Law Firm Blst, Attorneys Park Jin-jin, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

E. E.S. Urban Development Corporation (former Name Law Firm, Attorney Park Sang-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2004Nu11512 delivered on March 25, 2005

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

Article 95 (2) of the former Local Autonomy Act (amended by Act No. 8423 of May 11, 2007) provides that the head of a local government may delegate or entrust part of the affairs under his/her authority to the competent local government, public organization, or its agency (including its office and branch office) in accordance with its Municipal Ordinance or Municipal Rule. For the development and supply of housing sites, the construction, improvement, supply, and management of houses, and the improvement of citizens’ residential stability and welfare, Defendant SP Corporation (hereinafter “Defendant Corporation”) shall be established for the purpose of establishing the Urban Development Corporation and prescribing matters concerning the affairs and operation of the Corporation (hereinafter “Defendant Corporation”) under Article 19 (1) of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Establishment and Operation of Urban Development Corporation (amended by Ordinance No. 3639 of July 26, 199; hereinafter “Municipal Ordinance”).

In addition, housing site development projects under the Housing Site Development Promotion Act are determined as an agency project subject to the above contract, which is concluded between the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor and the president of the defendant Corporation.

In full view of the relevant provisions of the Local Autonomy Act and Municipal Ordinance and the terms of agency contract as above, the defendant Corporation shall be deemed to have been entrusted or entrusted with the authority under the Housing Site Development Promotion Act and the former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Acquisition of Land for Public Use and Compensation for Loss (amended by Act No. 6656 of Feb. 4, 2002) and the Housing Supply Rules to the migrants who were to be deprived of their base of livelihood due to the provision of houses necessary for the implementation of the project while residing in the housing site development project district of this case where the Seoul Special Metropolitan City is the project operator, and due to the provision of houses necessary for the implementation of the project, the defendant Corporation shall be deemed to have been entrusted or entrusted with the authority under the Housing Site Development Promotion Act, including the authority to establish relocation measures to sell the land developed by the implementation of the housing site development project or to grant the right to occupy

The court below's decision on the merits against the defendant corporation in the lawsuit of this case, which is a disqualified person subject to relocation measures, includes the purport of rejecting the main safety defense of the defendant corporation that did not have the authority to take the disposition of this case. Thus, there is no error of law such as omission of judgment on the relocation measures or misapprehension of legal principles as asserted in the judgment below.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

After comprehensively taking account of the adopted evidence, the lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning. The lower court determined that the instant disposition was unlawful, on the premise that the Plaintiffs were merely the co-owners of a single building and the building Nos. 1 and 2, and that the legal relationship owned by only one of the co-owners constitutes “where only two co-owners co-ownership one building,” and rather, it is reasonable to deem that the building Nos. 1 and 2 are separate buildings subject to the granting of the right to purchase each unit of building.

In light of the records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just, and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to sectional ownership.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yang Sung-tae (Presiding Justice)