logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2019.09.26 2016다262598
토지사용동의의사표시 청구의 소
Text

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

Reasons

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

1. Where a project implementer of an urban or Gun planning facility project needs to temporarily use a specific land adjacent to the project area for the storage of materials or for a temporary passage in order to conduct a basic investigation of an urban or Gun planning facility project, or an investigation, survey, or implementation of an urban or Gun planning facility project, pursuant to Article 130(1) and (3) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”), the project implementer shall obtain consent from the owner, occupant, or manager of the relevant land (hereinafter “owner, etc.”), and the landowner, etc. is obligated to authorize and consent to “temporary use” of the project implementer unless there is a justifiable reason

Also, the circumstance that there is a dispute over the compensation for loss can not be a justifiable reason for the landowner to refuse to consent to temporary use.

On the other hand, where a landowner, etc. refuses to give consent to the temporary use of a project implementer without a justifiable reason, the project implementer may file a lawsuit against the landowner, etc. of the relevant land to seek consent.

As such, the obligation to express consent to the temporary use of land is an obligation under the public law specifically recognized by the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, a lawsuit disputing the existence of such obligation ought to be deemed as a “litigation concerning legal relations under public law with either party to such legal relations as the defendant,” i.e., a party litigation under Article 3 subparag. 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act

(2) On September 9, 2019, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, temporarily held the Defendants’ land owned as temporary passage and storage for materials.

arrow