207Guhap741. Revocation of part of authorization for the implementation of housing redevelopment project

207 Implementation of procedures for the alteration of office fixtures 1980 (Intervention)

■■■ 주택재개발 정비사업조합

Representative President AAA of the Union

Attorney Zoo-hwan, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

The Administrator of the Busan Metropolitan Government

Law Firm, Attorney-at-Law

Y Y

May 31, 2007

July 12, 2007

1. The request for intervention by an independent party intervenor shall be rejected;

2. On October 10, 2006, the part as indicated in the separate sheet among the conditions for authorization for implementation of a housing redevelopment project added by the Defendant to the disposition for authorization for implementation of the housing redevelopment project for the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising from the principal lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant, and the part resulting from the intervention shall be borne by the independent party intervenor.

The main office of the Guro-gu branch: It is as specified in paragraph (2) of this Article.

독립당사자참가 : ■주택재개발 사업구역 내에 잇는 부산 구★★동00-28, 0-101 현행 소방도로에 관하여 주택재개발사업에 의하여 용도폐지를 하여서는 아니된다. 같은 사업구역 내에 있는 소로 3류00호선은 원고 및 피고에게 무상귀속되어서는 아니 된다. 같은 사업구역 내에 있는 부산 ●●구 ★★동 00-4, 00-33 토지는 사업시행구역에서 제외되어야 한다. 위 명륜동 00-28, 0~101에 관하여 같은 동 00-4, 00-33 토지 공유자들을 우선매수자로 선정하는 사무처리절차를 이행하라.

1. Determination on the legitimacy of the application for intervention by an independent party

독립당사자 참가는 소송목적의 전부나 일부가 자기의 권리라고 주장하거나 소송결과에 따라 권리가 침해된다고 주장하는 제3자가 당사자의 양쪽 또는 한쪽을 상대방으로 하여 계속중인 소송에 참가하는 제도인바, 원고가 피고를 상대로 제기한 이 사건 본소는 피고의 ■■■ 주택재개발사업 시행인가에 붙은 조건 중 별지 목록(생략) 기재 부분의 취소를 구하는 것으로서 사업시행인가처분 자체의 위법을 사유로 하는 것임에 비하여, 독립당사자 참가인(선정당사자, 이하 독립당사자 참가인이라고만 한다)의 참가신 청취지는 피고의 주택재개발사업 시행인가의 기본행위인 원고의 사업시행계획 또는 그 전단계 절차인 피고의 정비구역지정처분의 내용을 다투는 것이어서, 이 사건 본소의 소송목적의 전부나 일부가 자기의 권리라고 주장하거나 소송결과에 따라 권리가 침해된다고 주장하는 경우에 해당하지 아니하므로, 이 사건 독립당사자 참가신청은 부적법하다.

2. Determination as to the principal lawsuit

(a) Details of the disposition;

피고가 원고의 신청에 대하여 2006. 0. 10. 원고에게 ■■■ 주택재개발사업 시행인가를 하면서 별지 목록(생략)기재와 같은 조건(이하 이 사건 조건이라고 한다)을 붙인 사실은 당사자 사이에 다툼이 없다.

B. Whether the disposition is lawful

Article 65 (2) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter referred to as the “Urban Improvement Act”) provides that an infrastructure for rearrangement newly installed by a project implementer who is not the head of a Si/Gun or a housing construction project shall gratuitously vest in the State or a local government to manage the infrastructure (hereinafter referred to as the “former Regulations”), and an infrastructure for rearrangement owned by the State or a local government to be ceased to be used due to the implementation of a rearrangement project shall be transferred to the project implementer without compensation to the extent equivalent to the installation cost of the newly installed infrastructure. According to the evidence No. 1-1 and No. 2 of the evidence No. 1-2, the infrastructure for rearrangement owned by the State or a local government to be ceased to be used due to the implementation of the Plaintiff’s housing redevelopment project shall be 10,289.4m, and the new infrastructure for rearrangement installed by the Plaintiff shall be 17,085m2,810m2, green belts, green belt 22,309m2, regardless of the foregoing provision.

The defendant argues that the latter part of the Act on Assessment of Impacts of Works on Environment, Traffic, Disasters, etc. is not applicable since the project area of this case was originally a Class-II general residential area with a floor area ratio of less than 200% under the Urban Planning Ordinance of Busan Metropolitan City, but the defendant changed the floor area ratio to a Class-III general residential area with a floor area ratio of less than 300% at its own expense, and then applied the floor area ratio to 264.93% when granting authorization for project implementation of this case. In addition, as the defendant abolished the existing fundamental infrastructure, it is possible for the plaintiff to secure a site of much larger area than the case where the plaintiff maintains it as it is. Accordingly, the plaintiff gains more profit than the installation cost of the newly constructed fundamental infrastructure. Thus, the latter part of the Act does not apply to this case, and the latter part of the Act on Assessment of Impacts of Works on Environment, Traffic, Disasters, etc.

Therefore, the defendant's above argument ① Since the latter part provision is a mandatory provision, the application of the latter part provision cannot be excluded by the party's will, and even in the Urban Improvement Act, there is no provision that if a project implementer gains profits from the mitigation and application of the floor area ratio, disuse of the existing fundamental infrastructure, etc., the installation cost of the newly installed fundamental infrastructure shall be compensated as much as the profits therefrom. Thus, the application of the latter part provision shall not be excluded even if the plaintiff gains profits from the installation cost of the newly installed fundamental infrastructure due to the mitigation and application of the floor area ratio, disuse of existing fundamental infrastructure, etc. as alleged by the defendant

Next, as to the defendant's argument (2), the term in the same law should be equally interpreted unless otherwise provided in the law, and the term in the latter provision refers to the "infrastructure for maintenance newly installed by the project implementer in the implementation of the improvement project" in the former provision, and both are the same. Therefore, even if the easing lane is a fundamental infrastructure for improvement in which the duty of installation is recognized by the Act on Assessment of Impacts of Works on Environment, Traffic, Disasters, etc., even if it is a basic facility for improvement in the latter part, it shall not be interpreted as excluded from the fundamental infrastructure for improvement in the latter part provision.

Therefore, the defendant's argument is without merit.

3. Conclusion

If so, the request for intervention by an independent party is unlawful, and the plaintiff's request is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating parties.

Judges Maximum Judge of the presiding judge

Judges Lee Jong-soo

Judge Yang Sung-nam