In case where real estate acquired through consultation for a housing site development project under the Urban Planning Act is incorporated into a green area by the determination of an urban planning plan, whether such real estate is virtually left alone and it is no longer necessary for the relevant project (negative)

According to the Urban Planning Act and Article 32 of the former Building Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 4381 of May 31, 1991) and Article 66 [Attachment Table 3] of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12022 of December 29, 1986), real estate acquired through consultation is included in the designation of a residential area, commercial area, industrial area, quasi-industrial area, green area, etc. within the project zone at the time of urban planning determination. Under the Urban Planning Act, a green area among these areas is designated when it is necessary to preserve green areas in order to prevent health and sanitation, pollution prevention, security, and unreasonable expansion of cities, and real estate is included in a green area.

Article 9(1) of the Public Compensation for Loss, Article 32 of the former Building Act (amended by Act No. 4381 of May 31, 1991), Article 66 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Building Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12022 of December 29, 1986), Article 17(1)4 of the Urban Planning Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff 1, et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant of the deceased non-party

Hanyang-gun (Law Firm Hanwon, Attorneys Yho-ho et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Supreme Court Decision 95Da24845 delivered on November 28, 1995

Cheongju District Court Decision 96Na304 delivered on August 14, 1997

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs' grounds of appeal (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed) are examined as follows.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its reasoning. The public project under the Act on the Acquisition of Land for Public Use refers to the project that can expropriate or use land pursuant to Article 3 subparagraph 2 of the same Act. Article 3 subparagraph 8 of the Land Expropriation Act stipulates one of the projects that can expropriate or use land, and Article 2 (1) and Article 29 of the Urban Planning Act (amended by Act No. 4427 of Dec. 14, 191) lists a group of housing construction projects that can expropriate or use necessary land, and a group of housing site development projects that can be integrated into a new urban planning project, and it seems that there is no need to establish a new urban planning project under Article 9 of the Urban Planning Act (amended by Act No. 4427 of Dec. 14, 1991) for the purpose of the new rural complex development project, and thus, it seems that there is no need to establish a new urban planning project within the boundary of the area designated by the Presidential Decree No. 13 of the Seoul Metropolitan Area. 6.

In light of the records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just in accordance with the purport of the judgment of remanding, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, such as theory

Therefore, all appeals are 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 Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)