[1] Whether a project implementer’s refusal to make a special allotment application under Article 8(1) of the Special Act on Compensation for Public Loss and Compensation for Loss is an administrative disposition subject to appeal (affirmative)

[2] Whether there is a legal interest in seeking revocation of an administrative disposition rejecting the application for the selection of the person subject to the relocation measures, even in cases where the relocation measures pursuant to Article 8(1) of the Act on the Compensation for Public Loss and Compensation of Losses are terminated and there is no separate site for the relocation measures to be

[3] The time limit for addition or modification of the grounds for disposition by an administrative agency in a revocation suit (=the time of closing argument in a factual hearing)

[4] Whether the owner of a house as a person subject to measures for resettlement of public loss refers to the person who has the right to actually dispose of (affirmative)

[1] Article 8(1) of the Special Act on the Compensation for Public Loss and Compensation of Losses stipulates that the project implementer shall take measures for relocation of those who are deprived of their base of livelihood due to the provision of land, etc. necessary for the implementation of the public project. In the event that the project implementer establishes measures for relocation of those who provided land, etc. for the implementation of the project pursuant to the Housing Site Development Promotion Act, the above measures for relocation are legally advantageous to those who cooperate in the public project to demand special supply opportunities. Therefore, the right to apply for special supply is recognized. Therefore, the project implementer's refusal of such measures to those who requested special purchase on the ground that they fall under the above provision is subject to appeal even if they

[2] According to Article 8 (1) of the Special Act on the Compensation for Public Loss and Compensation for Residents, if the project implementer had a duty to establish and implement the relocation measures, and established and publicly announced the relocation measures plan pursuant to the said duty, seeking revocation of an administrative disposition rejected by the person who requested the selection on the ground that he/she was not a person subject to the relocation measures can be confirmed as a person subject to the relocation measures. The confirmation and decision made by the project implementer constitutes a requirement for acquiring specific rights to purchase housing sites or apartment houses under the relocation measures, and the relocation measures already established and implemented are completed, and even if there is no exclusive housing site for the relocation measures to be sold within the project district of this case after the completion of the project, there still remains a legal interest to seek revocation of the disposition of refusal, such circumstance alone does not make

[3] Administrative agencies shall be allowed to add and change other grounds only to the extent that the identity of basic facts is recognized. However, this is permitted only until the closing of arguments in the fact-finding court.

[4] In light of the purport of Articles 5(1) and (5) and 8(1) of the Act on the Compensation for Public Loss, it is reasonable to deem that a house owner does not mean a person with external ownership, but means a person with a real right to dispose of the house. Moreover, the proof that there is a real right to dispose of the house by other reliable materials than a certified copy of the building registry does not

[1] Article 8 (1) of the Act on the Compensation for Public Loss, Article 1 [General Administrative Disposition] and Article 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [2] Article 8 (1) of the Act on the Compensation for Public Loss, Article 1 [General Administrative Disposition] and Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [3] Articles 1 [General Administrative Disposition] and 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [4] Articles 5 (1) and (5) and 8 (1) of the Act on the Compensation for Public Loss

[1] Supreme Court en banc Decision 92Da35783 decided May 24, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 1779 decided Oct. 25, 1994) 93Da46919 decided Oct. 12, 1995 (Gong194Ha, 3078), Supreme Court Decision 94Nu1279 decided Oct. 12, 1995 (Gong195, 3795), Supreme Court Decision 96Nu18014 decided Mar. 28, 1997 (Gong1979 and 197Nu979 decided Oct. 29, 197) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 96Nu18979 decided Oct. 16, 197 (Gong1997 and 1258 decided Mar. 29, 197

Plaintiff

Seoul Special Metropolitan City Urban Development Corporation (Attorney Kim Chang-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 97Gu37915 delivered on September 22, 1998

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal

Article 8(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning Public Use and Compensation (hereinafter referred to as the "Special Cases Act") provides a project implementer with land, etc. necessary for the implementation of a public project, and requires a project implementer to take measures for resettlement. If a project implementer takes measures for resettlement against a person who provided land, etc. for the implementation of a project pursuant to the Housing Site Development Promotion Act, the above measures for resettlement is deemed to give legal interest to the person who cooperates in the public project to demand special supply opportunities. Therefore, the right to apply for special supply is recognized. Therefore, even if a project implementer refuses a request for special sale on the ground that it falls under the above provision through the form of civil petition meeting, the refusal is subject to appeal litigation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Nu1279, Oct. 12, 1995; 96Nu18014, Mar. 28, 1997).

In addition, if a project operator has a duty to establish and implement relocation measures, and establishes and publicly announces a plan for relocation measures following the fulfillment of such duty, seeking revocation of an administrative disposition rejected on the ground that the project operator is not a person subject to relocation measures is confirmed as a person subject to relocation measures. The confirmation and decision made by the project operator constitutes a requirement for acquiring specific rights to purchase a housing site or an apartment house occupancy right, etc. under the relocation measures, and thus, the relocation measures already formulated and implemented have been completed, and even if there is no exclusive housing site for relocation measures to be sold within the project district of this case after completion of the project, there still remains a legal benefit to confirm the right to claim compensation, etc., and thus, the plaintiff does not have any legal interest in seeking revocation of the disposition of this case

Although the reasoning of the judgment of the court below is somewhat inappropriate, it is just in its conclusion that there is legal interest, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there is no violation of the legal principles concerning administrative disposition or legal

The ground of appeal on this point is rejected.

2. On the second ground for appeal

A. Administrative agencies are allowed to add and modify other grounds only to the extent that the identity of basic facts is recognized. However, this is allowed only until the closing of arguments in fact-finding proceedings (see Supreme Court Decision 98Du16675, Feb. 9, 199).

The defendant's ground of appeal that the plaintiff is not entitled to apply for relocation measures to the plaintiff since the period of application for relocation measures or the period of implementation of relocation measures (execution) is over the period of actual relocation measures, and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to apply for relocation measures to the plaintiff, and that the project operator is not obligated to accept it and bear the legal obligation to supply the housing site or apartment buildings, is not only a new argument that is not in the original trial but also a new one that is not a house owner in the project district

The argument in the grounds of appeal on this point is not acceptable.

B. In light of the purport of Articles 5(1) and (5) and 8(1) of the Public Special Act, it is reasonable to deem that a house owner does not mean a person with external ownership, but a person with a real right to dispose of the property. Moreover, it does not exclude the verification of the existence of a real right to dispose of the property by other reliable materials than a certified copy of the building register (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Nu14067, Feb. 11, 1997; 91Nu8692, Apr. 24, 1992).

The record reveals that the plaintiff had a real right to purchase the housing of this case on December 18, 1979, which was prior to the public notice of the defendant's planned housing site development area, and the plaintiff had a real right to dispose of the housing of this case. Thus, the plaintiff shall be deemed to be included in the supplied person

The recognition and judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the selection of a person subject to relocation measures.

The ground of appeal on this point is also rejected.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)