[1] Whether the tenant of a residential building under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents shall continue to reside until the date of the public notice of the management and disposal plan for the implementation of the rearrangement project and the public notice of the compensation plan for the housing relocation cost (negative)

[2] Persons eligible for compensation for director expenses under Article 78(5) of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects

[1] Article 78(5) of the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation therefor; Article 54(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation therefor; Articles 4(1) and 40(1) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 9047, Mar. 28, 2008); Article 11(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents / [2] Article 78(5) of the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation therefor; Article 5(2)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2006Du2435 Decided April 27, 2006 (Gong2006Sang, 926) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2010Du5332 Decided November 11, 2010 (Gong2010Ha, 2274)

Plaintiff 1 and three others (Law Firm Jeong, Attorneys Park Jae-hwan et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

New 7. Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association (Law Firm Index, Attorneys Park Sung-hun et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2011Nu5591 decided August 31, 2011

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal on the cost of moving dwelling

According to Article 78(5) of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (hereinafter “Public Works Projects Act”), and the main text of Article 54(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, where a tenant of a residential building relocated due to the implementation of a public project has resided in the relevant public project implementation zone for not less than three months at the time of the public project approval, etc. or the public announcement under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes for the public project implementation zone, he/she shall compensate for relocation expenses for four months depending on the number of his/her household members. Meanwhile, pursuant to Article 4(1) and (2) of the former Act on the Improvement of Urban and Residential Environments (amended by Act No. 9047, Mar. 28, 2008; hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) and Article 11(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the head of a Si/Gun shall establish a rearrangement plan including the improvement zone and the size thereof for public inspection for at least 14 days, and shall apply mutatis mutandis to the designation or public announcement of the Special Metropolitan City Mayor.

In full view of the contents, form, and legislative background of each of the above provisions, housing relocation expenses are paid to tenants who will suffer from special difficulties due to their residential relocation at the same time by encouraging early relocation of tenants residing in the relevant public works implementation zone, and at the same time to smoothly implement the project (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Du2435, Apr. 27, 2006, etc.), it is not necessary for tenants of residential buildings under the Urban Improvement Act to continue to reside until the date of public announcement of the management and disposal plan according to the implementation of the improvement project and the compensation plan for the housing relocation expenses, to receive compensation for the housing relocation expenses.

In the same purport, under the premise that the defendant's assertion, that is, the plaintiff 1, 2, and 3 should continue to reside until the date of the public notice of the management and disposal plan for the rearrangement project in this case, the court below rejected the claim that the payment of the cost of housing relocation cannot be made until the public notice of the management and disposal plan or the compensation plan therefor is publicly notified, and it is reasonable to order the above plaintiffs to pay the cost of housing relocation. In so doing, there is no error

2. As to the ground of appeal on director expenses

In light of the purport of Article 78(5) of the Public Works Act, Article 55(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, and the director’s expense (referring to expenses necessary for the transportation of movable property, such as household appliances) to facilitate the promotion of public works, and to protect residents who move their residence, it is reasonable to view that a person entitled to compensation for director’s expense is a resident of a residential building to be incorporated in a zone where public works are performed, who is relocated due to the implementation of public works (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Du5332, Nov. 11, 2010).

Upon examining the records in light of the above legal principles, the court below is just in holding that the plaintiffs were entitled to compensation for directors' non-director since they moved into a residential building in the rearrangement zone of this case and moved out due to the implementation of the housing redevelopment project of this case after the date of announcement of the project implementation authorization, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on

3. Conclusion

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 on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-deok (Presiding Justice)