Whether the municipal ordinance exempted the collection of interest for a certain period of time for the installment collection of liquidation money violates Article 54 of the former Urban Redevelopment Act, and Article 47 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Urban Redevelopment Act (affirmative)

Article 47(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Urban Redevelopment Act on the installment collection, etc. of liquidation money following the completion of construction of redevelopment projects shall be deemed to be a provision premised on the necessary collection of interest in the case of installment collection, etc. in light of the form of such provision. Therefore, it shall not be allowed to fully or partially exempt interest by municipal ordinances. Therefore, the provision that a grace period of less than three years may be established in the installment collection of liquidation money under the proviso of Article 2(1) of the Ordinance on the Collection of Liquidation Money for Development Project Re-decided by the local council is unlawful as it violates Article 54 of the former Urban Redevelopment Act (wholly amended by Act No. 5116, Dec. 29, 195); Article 47(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Urban Redevelopment Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 15096, Jun. 29, 196).

Article 54 of the former Urban Redevelopment Act (amended by Act No. 5116 of Dec. 29, 1995); Article 47 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Urban Redevelopment Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15096 of Jun. 29, 1996)

The head of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (Attorney Lee Jong-ok, Counsel for defendant)

The Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Council

A re-resolution on the draft of the Seoul Bupyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Ordinance on the Collection of Liquidation Money of Housing Improvement Redevelopment Project Districts, which was made by the defendant on March 4, 1996, has no effect. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

1. Factual basis

The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and evidence Nos. 3-1 and 2, which do not conflict with the establishment.

A. On December 29, 1995, at the 11st regular session of the 45th regular session, the Defendant passed a resolution to collect the liquidation money of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Housing Improvement Project District (hereinafter “Ordinance of this case”) and transferred it to the Plaintiff on the same day. The Plaintiff demanded reconsideration from the Defendant on January 17, 1996 on the ground that the Ordinance of this case was in violation of Article 22 of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance of Public Property Management, according to the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor’s instruction of the request for reconsideration. However, on March 4, 1995, the Defendant re-resolutiond the same contents as the previous Ordinance at the 1st regular session of the 4

B. Article 1 of the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Ordinance on the Implementation of Housing Improvement and Redevelopment Project shall, notwithstanding the proviso of Article 31(1) of the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Ordinance on the Implementation of Housing Improvement and Redevelopment Project, provide that "the purpose of this Ordinance is to prescribe special cases concerning the first sale disposal in the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Housing Improvement and Redevelopment Project District and the collection of settlement money related thereto" and Article 2(1) of the same Ordinance shall be collected in lump sum. However, where it is deemed difficult to collect the total amount in lump sum, the settlement money may be collected in installments for a period not exceeding 10 years on the basis of the announcement date of the sale disposal, and a grace period of not more than three years may be set up during the period of the installment collection, and the balance may be added to

2. Whether the Ordinance of this case violates the Urban Redevelopment Act

A. Article 54(1) of the Urban Redevelopment Act provides that "The liquidation money under the provisions of Article 53(1) may be collected or paid in installments under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree," and Article 47(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act provides that "the interest rate for the case where the liquidation money is collected or paid in installments under the provisions of Article 54(1) of the Act shall be below the general loan interest of the financial institution at the time when the collection or payment in installments is decided," and Article 30 of the Act, Article 31(1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act provides that "the interest rate for the case where the settlement money is collected or paid in installments under the provisions of Article 54(1) of the Act shall be below the general loan interest of the financial institution at the time when the collection or payment in installments is decided."

B. It is reasonable to view that Article 47(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Installment Collection, etc. of Liquidation Following the completion of construction of redevelopment project is a provision premised on the necessary collection of interest in the case of installment collection, etc. in light of the form of the provision thereof. Therefore, it is not allowed to fully or partially exempt interest under municipal ordinances.

Therefore, Article 54 of the Act and Article 47 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act provide that a grace period of less than three years may be established in the division and collection of liquidation money under the proviso of Article 2 (1) of the Ordinance of this case, which the defendant re-decided, shall be deemed to be illegal.

3. Therefore, since the Ordinance re-resolutiond by the defendant is unlawful and effective, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)