Plaintiff 1 and 109 others (LLC, Attorneys Han-hee et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Land and Housing Corporation (Law Firm Oyn Law, Attorneys Noh So-young, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

November 23, 2010

Suwon District Court Decision 2009Guhap9728 Decided May 13, 2010

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs listed in attached Form 1. The amount of the corresponding sum of the claim amount in attached Form 3. The sum of the plaintiffs listed in attached Table 3. (JJ 3) and each of them shall be 5% per annum from March 14, 2007 to the service date of a duplicate of the complaint of this case, 20% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment, to the plaintiffs listed in attached Table 2. The amount of the corresponding sum of the claim amount listed in attached Form 4. (SJ 3) and each of them shall be 5% per annum from September 22, 2007 to the service date of a duplicate of the complaint of this case, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. Purport of appeal

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiffs falling under the following part of the order to pay is revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs the amount of money in attached Form 3. Claim No. 3 and attached Form 4. Claim No. 4. Claim No. 3 with interest calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the day after the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this Court’s judgment is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment (except for the part on “3. Conclusion”) in addition to any addition or dismissal below, and such reasoning is cited as it is.

▣ 제1심 판결문 4쪽 첫째줄의 “규정하고 있다.” 다음에 “도시정비법에는 주거이전비의 지급을 배제하는 규정 또는 순환용주택과 주거이전비를 선택적으로 제공하게 하는 규정이 없다.”를, 11째줄의 “피고는” 앞에 “도시정비법상 주거이전비의 지급과 순환용주택의 공급은 택일적 관계에 있는데”를 각 추가하고, 14째줄의 “사업인정고시일”을 “정비구역지정고시일”로 고친다.

▣ 제1심 판결문 5쪽 1~2째줄의 “규정하면서 주거이전비에 대한 독자적인 규정을 두지 아니하여”를 “규정하고 있는데, 여기서의 임시수용과 주거이전비 지급은 뒤에서 보는 것처럼 그 목적이 중복되는 측면이 있고 도시정비법에 주거이전비 지급에 관한 명시적인 별도의 규정이 없는 점 등에 비추어 보아, 위 도시정비법 제36조 제1항 의 ‘임시수용에 상응하는 조치’에는 주거이전비의 지급이 포함된다고 볼 여지도 있어서”로 고친다.

▣ 제1심 판결문 6쪽 8째줄의 “세입자가” 다음에 “도시정비법 및 공익사업법의 관련 규정상 순환용주택의 공급과 주거이전비의 지급을 중복하여 청구할 수 있는지가 명확하지 않은 반면 양자의 목적은 중복되는 상태에서,”를 추가하고, 10째줄 다음에 아래의 판단을 추가한다.

“The Plaintiff, as the Defendant’s deception or coercion, prepared a written waiver of the cost of moving a house by deception or coercion, such waiver is null and void, and even if not, the Plaintiffs asserted that the waiver of the said written waiver is null and void, since the Plaintiffs cancelled the declaration of the waiver by filing the instant suit or the legal brief dated November 23, 2010 on the grounds of the Defendant’s deception or mistake by the Plaintiffs.

However, the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs alone is insufficient to recognize that the expression of the plaintiffs' intent to waive the cost of housing relocation was made by the defendant's deception or coercion, etc., and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise. Furthermore, even if the plaintiffs can claim the payment of the cost of housing relocation to the defendant separately from the supply of circulative housing, and even if the plaintiffs caused mistake in this regard, this is merely an error of motive in the expression of intent to waive the said cost of housing relocation. However, there is insufficient evidence to prove that the plaintiffs expressed that they should consider the above motive as the content of the said expression of intent to the defendant and that

Therefore, the plaintiffs' above assertion is not accepted.

▣ 제1심 판결문 7쪽 3~4째줄의 “사업시행인가일 다음날인 2007. 3. 14.부터”를 “사업시행인가일 이후로서 위 원고가 이사비의 지급을 청구한 것으로 볼 수 있는 이 사건 소장 부본 송달 다음날인 2009. 9. 25.부터(원고는 이 사건 사업시행인가일 다음날부터의 지연손해금을 구하나, 사업시행자의 이사비지급채무는 이행기의 정함이 없는 채무이므로, 피고는 그 이행청구를 받은 때로부터 비로소 지체책임을 진다)”로 고친다.

2. Conclusion

The plaintiff 30's claim of this case is accepted in part within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining plaintiffs' claims should be dismissed without any grounds. The part against the plaintiff 30 in the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant who ordered payment in excess of the above recognition scope is unfair, but the decision of the court of first instance cannot be modified so that it is favorable to the defendant who did not appeal against it and disadvantageous to the plaintiff who is the appellant. Thus, only the above plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. Since the part against the plaintiff in the judgment of first instance is just and reasonable, and there is no ground to appeal against the other plaintiffs in the judgment of first instance, all of the appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Sung Pung-tae (Presiding Judge)