[1] Whether "a person who has withdrawn an application for parcelling-out" under Article 47 subparagraph 2 of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents is included in the "person who has voluntarily withdrawn the application for parcelling-out after the expiration of the period for application for parcelling-out (negative in principle), and where the person who voluntarily withdrawn the application

[2] Whether additional dues are imposed on the owner of land, etc. who became an additional object of cash settlement by clearly indicating that there is no intention to conclude a contract for parcelling-out after filing an application for parcelling-out or withdrawing the application for parcelling-out to the project implementer, and whether additional dues are imposed on the ground of delay of the project implementer's application for adjudication under Article 30 (3) of the former Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects where the project implementer's application for adjudication and its expropriation is made before the period of entering into

[1] Article 47 subparagraph 2 of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (Amended by Act No. 11293, Feb. 1, 2012) / [2] Article 30 (3) 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)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2008Da91364 Decided July 28, 201 (Gong2011Ha, 1717)

Plaintiff 1 and four others (Law Firm Lee & Lee, Attorneys Lee Young-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

king New Zealand Third District Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association (Law Firm B branch, Attorneys Cha Gyeong-ho et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2012Nu19436 decided January 24, 2013

Of the part against the defendant in the judgment below, the additional dues due to the delay of application for adjudication and the damages for delay thereof shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court. The remainder

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal on whether the plaintiffs are subject to cash clearing

According to Article 47 subparagraph 2 of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 11293, Feb. 1, 2012; hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), a project implementer for a housing redevelopment improvement project shall liquidate in cash land, buildings or other rights to the owners of land, etc. who have withdrawn the application for parcelling-out within 150 days from the “date falling under such cases” under the procedures prescribed by the Presidential Decree. Here, “person who has withdrawn the application for parcelling-out” referred to as “person who has withdrawn the application for parcelling-out within the period of parcelling-out” refers to the person who has withdrawn the application for parcelling-out before the expiration of the period of the application for parcelling-out after the expiration of the period of the application for parcelling-out, and shall not include those who have voluntarily withdrawn the contract after the expiration of the period of the contract. However, if the articles of incorporation or the management and disposal plan of the project implementer requests the members of the land, etc. who have not concluded the contract within the period of 208.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is just to determine that the plaintiffs who withdrawn the application for parcelling-out after the expiration of the period for application for parcelling-out falls under the objects of cash liquidation, and there is no error of exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or misapprehending

2. As to the ground of appeal on additional dues due to the delay in application for adjudication

A. The lower court determined that, in relation to the remaining Plaintiffs, the Defendant was obligated to file an application for adjudication of expropriation with the competent Land Tribunal from March 12, 2010 to April 15, 2010, which is the period of compensation notified by the Defendant, on the ground that an agreement was not reached between March 12, 2010 and April 15, 2010, which is the period of compensation agreed upon by the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to file an application for adjudication of expropriation after the said consultation period with the Defendant, until June 27, 2010, which is the 60th day from April 28, 2010 to 60 days from April 16, 2010 to June 15, 2010, for delayed payment of additional charges under the former Act on the Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation Therefor (amended by Act No. 10314, Nov. 19, 2010).

B. However, we cannot agree with the judgment of the court below for the following reasons.

Where an owner of land, etc. who has filed an application for parcelling-out has clearly indicated that there is no intention to conclude a contract for parcelling-out or to withdraw the application for parcelling-out to a project implementer, and the project implementer has become an additional object of cash settlement by consenting thereto, the project implementer’s obligation to pay the settlement money for such object of cash settlement arises. Therefore, if the project implementer applied for a ruling and its expropriation are made before the expiration of the period for entering into the contract for parcelling-out, there is no room for additional charges as prescribed in Article 30(3) of the Public Works Act on the grounds of delay of the project implementer’s application for an adjudication (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Du2778, Jan. 24, 20

According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the records, the plaintiffs filed an application for parcelling-out, but withdrawn the application for parcelling-out after the expiration of the period for application for parcelling-out, and the defendant filed an application for an expropriation decision with the local Land Tribunal of Seoul Special Metropolitan City on November 19, 2010, and the above committee made an application for expropriation decision on January 14, 201, and the period for entering into a parcelling-out contract was not determined until the time (the period for entering into a parcelling-out contract is expected to have been March 2012). In light of the above legal principles as seen earlier, in this case where the defendant's application for adjudication and the adjudication for expropriation was made before the expiration of the period for entering into a parcelling-out contract, additional charges as stipulated in Article 30 (3) of the former Public Works Act on the grounds of delay of the defendant's application for adjudication

C. Nevertheless, the lower court determined otherwise that the Defendant had the obligation to pay additional charges due to the delay of application for adjudication. In so determining, it erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the occurrence of additional charges due to the delay of application for adjudication under the Public Works Act, thereby affecting

3. Conclusion

Therefore, among the part against the defendant in the judgment below, the additional dues due to the delay of application for adjudication and the damages for delay thereof are reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices

Justices Kim Shin (Presiding Justice)