In the case of a housing redevelopment improvement project under the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, the method and amount of compensation for the housing relocation expenses for the tenants of residential buildings under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (i.e., the date the implementation of the project is publicly notified), and whether the compensation plan under Article 15 of the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation Therefor is not the procedure for the public announcement

Article 78(5) and (9) 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; Article 4 of the Addenda (amended by Presidential Decree No. 556 of Apr. 12, 2007); Article 54(2) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation therefor (amended by Ordinance No. 556 of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation of Apr. 12, 2007); Articles 30, 31(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. 9444 of Feb. 6, 2009); Article 41(1), (2), and Article 42 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21679 of Aug.

Supreme Court Decision 2006Du2435 Decided April 27, 2006 Supreme Court Decision 2009Du16824 Decided September 9, 2010

See Attached List of Plaintiffs (Law Firm Jeong, Attorneys Park Jae-hwan et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

king New Zealand District Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association (Attorney Park Il-il et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2009Nu38024 decided June 17, 2010

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are also examined.

1. Article 78(5) of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (hereinafter “Public Works Projects Act”) provides that “the residents of a residential building shall be compensated by calculating the cost necessary for relocation of the residential building and the cost necessary for the transportation of movable property, such as household facilities,” and Article 78(9) of the same Act provides that “The compensation under paragraphs (5) and (6) shall be governed by the standards prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs.” Under such delegation, Article 54(2) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (amended by Ordinance No. 556 of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation, Apr. 12, 2007; hereinafter “former Enforcement Rule”) provides that the tenants of a residential building who resided in the residential area due to the implementation of public work projects shall also be entitled to compensation for the relocation of the residential building within three months or more according to the amended Enforcement Rule of the Public Works Projects Act, including the relocation of the residential building within five months or more.”

Meanwhile, Article 40(1) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 9444, Feb. 6, 2009; hereinafter “former Act”) provides that “Except as otherwise provided for in this Act, the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation Therefor shall apply mutatis mutandis to the expropriation or use of the ownership of or other rights to the land or buildings for the implementation of a rearrangement project within a rearrangement zone.” The main sentence of Article 31(1) provides that “where the head of a Si/Gun intends to implement a project implementation plan or to prepare a project implementation plan, he/she shall make the relevant documents available for public perusal for at least 30 days in accordance with the methods and procedures prescribed by Presidential Decree.” Article 42 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21679, Aug. 11, 2009; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree”), the head of a Si/Gun shall make public announcement or public announcement of the relevant project implementation plan.

With the contents, form, system, legislative intent, etc. of the above relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, housing relocation expenses are the nature of social security for tenants who will suffer special difficulties due to their relocation of residence by encouraging early relocation of tenants residing in the relevant project implementation zone (see Supreme Court Decisions 2006Du2435, Apr. 27, 2006; 2009Du16824, Sept. 9, 2010, etc.). In addition, in order to implement housing redevelopment project, it is not clear whether the project implementer requested the payment of housing relocation expenses has not been determined at the time of the public inspection and announcement of the improvement plan, and it is sufficient that the project implementer can expropriate land, things, and other rights if necessary for the improvement project after the approval and announcement of the project implementation plan, it shall be deemed that the implementation plan is subject to the public inspection and announcement of the improvement plan under the former Act, and if it is necessary to implement the housing redevelopment project, it shall be deemed that the method and announcement of the compensation plan under the former Act is within the scope of the project implementation plan.

2. After compiling the adopted evidence, the lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning, and determined that the legal relationship as to whether a tenant acquires a right to claim compensation for housing relocation expenses and whether a tenant is a beneficiary of a right to live in a rental house is finalized on the date of public notice of project implementation authorization, so long as the legal relationship as to the right to claim compensation for housing relocation expenses at the time of June 29, 2006, which is the date of public notice of project implementation authorization of the instant case, is finalized, there is no room to retroactively apply the new Enforcement Rule, which was enforced on April 12, 2007, and thus, the determination

In light of the above legal principles and records, although the reasoning of the court below is partially inappropriate, the court below's conclusion that the compensation amount should be applied to the compensation amount under the premise that the contents of the compensation amount becomes final and conclusive on the date of public notice of project implementation authorization is justifiable. In so doing, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the application of the new Enforcement Rule, as

3. Therefore, all appeals are 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.

[Attachment] List of Plaintiffs: omitted

Justices Ko Young-han (Presiding Justice)