[1] Whether Article 8 of the former Act on the Compensation of Public Loss, which is the basis for the relocation measures and settlement funds for resettlement, applies mutatis mutandis to expropriation of land for the implementation of urban redevelopment projects (affirmative)

[2] Whether a redevelopment project does not take measures for relocation (negative)

[3] In a case where the owner of land, etc. was unable to be supplied housing, etc. by denying his/her status as a member of the redevelopment association by itself, whether it constitutes "the case of supplying housing site or housing to a person subject to relocation measures" under the proviso of Article 5 (5) of the former Special Act

[1] Article 32(1) of the former Urban Redevelopment Act (repealed by Act No. 6852 of Dec. 30, 2002) provides that the Land Expropriation Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to expropriation for the implementation of redevelopment projects except as otherwise provided in the Urban Redevelopment Act. Article 57-2 of the former Land Expropriation Act (repealed by Act No. 6656 of Feb. 4, 2002, Article 2 of the Addenda to the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation Therefor) provides that the provisions of Articles 3-2, 4, and 8 of the former Land Expropriation Act (repealed by Act No. 6656 of Feb. 4, 2002, Article 2 of the Addenda to the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation of Land, etc. for Land, etc. for Public Works and the former Urban Redevelopment Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the expropriation for the implementation of redevelopment projects, and thus, the former Urban Redevelopment Act does not apply mutatis mutandis to the land redevelopment project owner or the land redevelopment project under the former Act.

[2] Article 27 (1) of the former Urban Redevelopment Act (repealed by Act No. 6852 of Dec. 30, 2002) which provides for the provision on the installation of temporary accommodation facilities, which provides for temporary disposal of facilities during the period between the time when the redevelopment project is completed and the time when the housing is demolished due to the redevelopment project is occupied for the residents of the housing, provides that the person who is deprived of his/her living base due to the redevelopment project shall implement the relocation measures, and therefore, in the case of the redevelopment project, the said provision does not require relocation measures.

[3] Where a housing site or a house is supplied to a person subject to relocation measures under related Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Housing Site Development Promotion Act, the project implementer may not be separately paid the resettlement subsidy, but even if the owner of the land, etc. voluntarily denied his/her status as a member of the redevelopment association, it shall not be deemed that the case of supplying the housing site or a house to a person subject to relocation measures under the proviso of Article 5 (5) of the former Act on the Compensation for Public Loss (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the Act on the Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation for

[1] Article 32 (1) of the former Urban Redevelopment Act (repealed by Act No. 6852 of Dec. 30, 2002), Article 8 of the former Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation for Losses (repealed by Act No. 6656 of Feb. 4, 2002) / [2] Article 27 (1) of the former Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation for Losses (repealed by Act No. 6852 of Dec. 30, 2002) / [3] Article 5 (5) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Loss (repealed by Presidential Decree No. 17854

[1] [2] [3] Supreme Court Decision 2003Du865 Decided October 27, 2004, Supreme Court Decision 2003Du865 Decided October 28, 2004 / [1] Supreme Court Decision 2003Du14321 Decided October 28, 2004

New Housing Redevelopment Association (Law Firm Dong-dong Law Office, Attorney Lee In-bok, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

The Central Land Expropriation Committee

Defendant (Appointed Party) (Attorney Go-do et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2002Nu8147 delivered on December 13, 2002

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. (a) Article 32(1) of the Urban Redevelopment Act (amended by Act No. 6852 of Dec. 30, 2002) provides that the Land Expropriation Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to expropriation for the implementation of redevelopment projects except as otherwise provided for in the Urban Redevelopment Act. Article 57-2 of the Land Expropriation Act (amended by Act No. 6656 of Feb. 4, 2002; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that Article 32(1) of the Urban Redevelopment Act (amended by Act No. 6852 of Dec. 30 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the expropriation for the implementation of redevelopment projects. The Land Expropriation Act (amended by Act No. 6656 of Feb. 4, 2002) provides that Article 3-2, Article 4, and Article 8 of the Urban Redevelopment Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the land redevelopment projects to which the owner of the land fails to comply with the procedure of the redevelopment project under the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. under the premise that Article 8 of the Urban Redevelopment Act shall apply mutatis mutandis.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the court below is just in finding that the plaintiff was a redevelopment association established to implement a housing redevelopment project in the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City ( Address omitted) area of 14,745 square meters, and it did not reach an agreement with the defendant (appointed parties) and the remaining designated parties (hereinafter referred to as "the defendants"), but did not reach an agreement to acquire the land and housing owned by the Central Land Expropriation Committee (hereinafter referred to as "the defendant's Land Expropriation Committee"), and it did not accept the above land and housing. The above committee did not include the resettlement funds for the purpose of accepting the above land and housing. The court below did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the above accommodation funds, and there were no errors in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the relocation funds under Article 8 of the Act on Special Treatment of Public Works and the Enforcement Decree of the Act, and there were no errors in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the relocation funds under Article 27 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on 2012.27.

Supreme Court Decision 86Nu875 Decided June 23, 1987 cited in the ground of appeal confirms the legal principle that the relocation measures under the Public Special Act shall apply in a case where a public project operator acquires another's land, building, or other rights for a public project through consultation. Thus, it is inappropriate to invoke this case as it differs from this case where the Urban Redevelopment Act applies, and the Land Expropriation Act and the Public Special Act apply mutatis mutandis.

B. Article 27(1) of the Urban Redevelopment Act, a provision on the installation of temporary accommodation facilities, which provides the facilities to be temporarily located during the period between the redevelopment project and the residents where the housing is demolished due to the redevelopment project, provides that the person who is deprived of his/her livelihood due to the redevelopment project shall implement the relocation measures, separate from the relocation measures that provides that the person who is deprived of his/her livelihood due to the redevelopment project shall be subject to the said provision. Therefore, in the case of the redevelopment project, the relocation measures need not be established.

The decision of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the establishment of temporary accommodation facilities under Article 27 (1) of the Urban Redevelopment Act and the relocation measures under Article 8 of the Public Special Act.

C. Article 5(5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Special Act of the Public Sector provides that the relocation measures shall be established and implemented in cases where not less than 10 persons wishing to move to the resettlement area among the persons subject to the relocation measures, except in extenuating circumstances as prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation: Provided, That if the project implementer supplies housing sites or houses to the persons subject to the relocation measures pursuant to the related Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Housing Site Development Promotion Act and the Housing Construction Promotion Act, the relocation measures shall be deemed to have been established and implemented if the project implementer supplies housing sites or houses to the persons subject to the relocation measures pursuant to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Housing Site Development Promotion Act. However, even if the land owner itself becomes unable to be supplied with housing, etc. due to the denial of the status as a member of the redevelopment association, it

In the same purport, the court below is just in rejecting the Plaintiff’s assertion that the remaining Defendants did not directly join the redevelopment association, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the relocation measures under Article 8 of the Special Public Officials Act and Article 5(5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Special Public Officials Act.

2. Therefore, the appeal is 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 Yoon Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)