Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Jong-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul Special Metropolitan City Land Expropriation

October 23, 2014

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2013Guhap31158 decided March 28, 2014

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. On January 25, 2013, the defendant's rejection of the acceptance decision on the 192 square meters of the road of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Fire-Fighting Dong (Land Number 1 omitted) against the plaintiff shall be revoked.

1. Facts of recognition;

(a) Circumstances in which a road of 192 square meters is used as a road in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Fire-Fighting Zone (number 1 omitted);

1) From April 16, 1968 to April 28, 1973, Nonparty 1 supplied 2,556 square meters as a site by dividing it into several lots, such as selling the building site by dividing the fire fighting zone (number 3 omitted), (number 4 omitted), etc., of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (number 2 omitted), into several pieces, which is owned by Nonparty 1, from April 16, 1968 to April 28, 197. On July 18, 1973, the land category of the above land was changed to 486 square meters on July 18, 1973.

2) On December 26, 1986, Nonparty 1 divided the road of 1,607 square meters into (number 2 omitted) road of 771 square meters on the (number 2 omitted), (2) road of 98 square meters on the (number 5 omitted), (3) road of 408 square meters on the (number 6 omitted), (4) road of 151 square meters on the (number 7 omitted), and (5) road of 179 square meters on the (number 8 omitted) road.

3) On March 21, 198, Nonparty 2 succeeded to a road of 771 square meters on the Gangseo-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Fire-Fighting Dong (number 2 omitted) from Nonparty 1, and on October 12, 1995, Nonparty 2 divided the said land into a road of 181 square meters (number 2 omitted), (2) a road of 192 square meters (number 1 omitted), (3) a road of 199 square meters (number 9 omitted), and (4) a road of 199 square meters (number 10 omitted).

(b) Circumstances in which Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government occupied the land;

1) On April 6, 1996, the head of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter referred to as the "head of Gangseo-gu") accepted the land in this case from the land in this case to the time from March 12, 1997 to the time of the construction of the urban planning (road) on August 16, 1976, the decision for modification of urban planning (road) on March 17, 1992, and Articles 10 and 25 of the former Urban Planning Act (wholly amended by Act No. 6243, Jan. 28, 2000; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the head of Gangseo-gu pursuant to Articles 10 and 25 of the former Urban Planning Act (wholly amended by Act No. 6243, Jan. 28, 200; hereinafter the same shall apply) and deemed the project approval of the urban planning project (hereinafter referred to as the "urban planning project in this case") on the land in this case from the land in this case to the time of Gangseo-gu to December 1997.

본문내 포함된 표 ◆ 구 「도시계획법」(2000. 1. 28. 법률 제6243호로 전부 개정되기 전의 것) ○ 제10조(권한의 위임) ① 이 법에 의한 건설부장관의 권한은 그 일부를 대통령령이 정하는 바에 의하여 서울특별시장·직할시장 또는 도지사(이하 "시·도지사"라 한다)에게 위임할 수 있으며, 시·도지사는 건설부장관의 승인을 얻어 그 위임받은 권한을 시장(서울특별시장 및 직할시장을 제외한다)·군수·구청장(자치구의 구청장에 한한다)에게 재위임할 수 있다. ○ 제25조(실시계획의 인가) ① 도시계획사업의 시행자는 대통령령이 정하는 바에 따라 그 사업의 실시계획을 작성하여 건설부장관의 인가를 받아야 한다. (이하 생략) ○ 제29조(수용 및 사용) ① 시행자는 도시계획구역 안에서 도시계획사업에 필요한 토지·건축물 또는 그 토지에 정착된 물건이나 그 토지·건축물 또는 물건에 관한 소유권 이외의 권리는 이를 수용 또는 사용할 수 있다. 제30조(토지수용법의 준용) ① 제29조의 규정에 의한 수용 또는 사용에 관하여는 이 법에 특별한 규정이 있는 경우를 제외하고는 토지수용법을 준용한다. ② 제1항의 규정에 의하여 토지수용법을 준용함에 있어서는 제25조의 규정에 의한 실시계획의 인가를 토지수용법 제14조의 규정에 의한 사업인정으로 본다. 다만, 재결신청은 토지수용법 제17조 및 동법 제25조 제2항의 규정에 불구하고 실시계획의 인가를 함에 있어서 정한 도시계획사업의 시행기간 내에 행하여야 한다.

2) On April 15, 1996, the head of Gangseo-gu publicly announced the authorization of the above implementation plan pursuant to Articles 10 and 26 of the former Urban Planning Act, and on the same day, it is deemed that the approval was publicly announced pursuant to Article 16 of the former Urban Planning Act pursuant to the main sentence of Article 30(2) of the former Urban Planning Act.

3) On June 19, 196, the head of Gangseo-gu decided not to expropriate the instant land in implementing the instant urban planning project on the ground that the instant land was already provided as a road by the owner. Accordingly, the head of Gangseo-gu decided not to expropriate the instant land, and accordingly did not file an application for the adjudication on expropriation of the instant land until December 31, 1997, which was the deadline for filing an application for the adjudication on expropriation under the proviso of Article 30(2) of the former Urban Planning Act. On January 1, 1998, the project approval of the instant land was invalidated pursuant to Article 17 of the former Land Expropriation Act.

본문내 포함된 표 ◆ 구 「토지수용법」(2002. 2. 4. 법률 제6656호로 폐지되기 전의 것) ○ 제17조(사업인정의 실효) 기업자가 제16조 제1항의 규정에 의한 사업인정의 고시가 있은 날로부터 1년 이내에 제25조 제2항의 규정에 의한 재결신청을 하지 아니한 때에는 사업인정은 그 기간만료일의 익일부터 그 효력을 상실한다.

4) By December 31, 1997, the head of Gangseo-gu acquired or expropriated the remaining land except for the instant land by consultation, and completed the instant urban planning project by installing a road of 8 meters in width and 230 meters in length on that ground.

5) The head of Gangseo-gu, while conducting the above road installation works, did not consult with Nonparty 2, who is the owner of the instant land. From April 9, 1997 to December 12, 1997, the road packaging work was also performed on the instant land. From this point, Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “Gangseo-gu”) began to occupy the instant land as a de facto controlling entity.

6) On May 15, 199, the head of Gangseo-gu recognized and publicly announced the road route of this case, including the instant land, as a road management authority, pursuant to Articles 17-2 and 19 of the former Road Act. From this point, Gangseo-gu began to occupy the instant land as a road management authority.

본문내 포함된 표 ◆ 구 「도로법」(2008. 2. 29. 법률 제8852호로 개정되기 전의 것) ○ 제17조의2(구도) 구도는 특별시 또는 광역시 구역안의 도로 중 특별시도·광역시도를 제외한 구(자치구에 한한다. 이하 같다)안의 동간을 연결하는 도로로서 관할 구청장이 그 노선을 인정한 것을 말한다. ○ 제19조(노선인정의 공고) 제14조 내지 제18조의 규정에 의하여 노선을 인정하였을 경우에는 그 노선명, 기점과 종점, 주요구간 기타 필요한 사항을 건설교통부령으로 정하는 바에 의하여 공고하여야 한다. ○ 제22조(도로관리청) ① 도로의 관리청은 국도에 있어서는 건설교통부장관, 국가지원지방도에 있어서는 도지사(특별시·광역시안의 구간은 당해 시장), 기타의 도로에 있어서는 그 노선을 인정한 행정청이 된다.

C. Nonparty 3’s acquisition of land ownership and claim for restitution of unjust enrichment

1) Nonparty 3 purchased the instant land in the process of compulsory auction at Seoul Southern District Court 2008ta-Ma4282, and paid the purchase price on September 11, 2009 and acquired the ownership thereof.

2) On February 9, 2010, Nonparty 3 filed a lawsuit against Gangseo-gu for the claim for return of unjust enrichment on the instant land. On September 10, 2010, the Seoul Central District Court rendered a judgment dismissing Nonparty 3’s claim on the ground that the Seoul Central District Court rendered a judgment dismissing Nonparty 3’s appeal on the same ground as the Seoul Central District Court rendered a judgment dismissing Nonparty 3’s appeal on February 17, 2011 (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2010Na4065), and on March 15, 2011, the Seoul Central District Court rendered a final judgment as it became final and conclusive on March 15, 2011.

D. Plaintiff’s claim for acquisition and expropriation of ownership of the instant land

1) On March 16, 2012, the Plaintiff purchased the instant land from Nonparty 3 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on March 19, 2012.

2) On November 29, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a claim for expropriation of the instant land based on Article 72 subparagraph 1 of the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation therefor (hereinafter “Public Works Act”) with the Defendant, claiming that the head of Gangseo-gu used the instant land for at least three years after April 15, 1996, which was publicly announced as a result of the implementation of the instant urban planning project.

본문내 포함된 표 ◆ 「공익사업을 위한 토지 등의 취득 및 보상에 관한 법률」 ○ 제72조(사용하는 토지의 매수청구 등) 사업인정고시가 된 후 다음 각 호의 어느 하나에 해당할 때에는 해당 토지소유자는 사업시행자에게 해당 토지의 매수를 청구하거나 관할 토지수용위원회에 그 토지의 수용을 청구할 수 있다. 이 경우 관계인은 사업시행자나 관할 토지수용위원회에 그 권리의 존속(존속)을 청구할 수 있다. 1. 토지를 사용하는 기간이 3년 이상인 경우 (이하 생략)

3) On January 25, 2013, where a project operator has used the pertinent land for not less than three years through consultation with the landowner or by the competent Land Tribunal’s ruling on the use of the relevant land, the Defendant may file a claim for expropriation of the relevant land based on Article 72 Subparag. 1 of the Public Works Act. The head of Gangseo-gu, the project operator of the instant urban planning project, did not consult with the owner of the instant land or have gone through the competent Land Tribunal’s ruling on the use of the instant land, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot file a claim for expropriation on the ground that the Plaintiff cannot file a claim for expropriation of the instant land based on Article 72 Subparag. 1 of the Public Works Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence of Nos. 1 through 5, 10, 11, 14 through 18, Eul evidence of Nos. 1 through 8, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff asserts that since the head of Gangseo-gu implemented the instant urban planning project on April 15, 1996, when the head of the Gu announced the public announcement of the project, the Plaintiff used the instant land for not less than three years from the date of closing argument in this case since April 15, 1996, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant disposition should be revoked on the ground of Article 72 subparagraph 1 of the Public Works Act, as the Defendant rejected the instant request for expropriation.

B. Determination

In order for the Plaintiff to file a claim for expropriation of the instant land based on Article 72 subparag. 1 of the Public Works Act, it is necessary to obtain project approval for the instant land, and ② the project operator should have used the instant land for at least three years.

However, as seen earlier, the project approval of the instant land loses its validity on January 1, 1998, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the instant land satisfies the requirements.

In addition, as seen earlier, Gangseo-gu only occupied the instant land as the de facto controlling entity or road management authority, and the head of Gangseo-gu, the project implementer of the instant urban planning project, did not use the instant land as the project implementer (the head of Gangseo-gu, the head of Gangseo-gu, did not consult with Nonparty 2, who was the owner of the instant land at the time when implementing the instant urban planning project, or did not have been adjudicated to use the instant land by the competent Land Tribunal).

Therefore, separate from the Plaintiff’s claim for return of unjust enrichment against Gangseo-gu, the occupant of the instant land, [the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Gangseo-gu on December 3, 2013, and the court of the first instance rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on June 11, 2014 (Yanwon District Court Decision 2013Na35102). The appellate court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal on November 14, 2014 on the ground that Nonparty 1 renounced exclusive right to use and benefit from the instant land, and the Plaintiff purchased the instant land with the knowledge of such circumstances (the Suwon District Court Decision 2014Na2372)] under Article 72 subparag. 1 of the Public Works Act, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff cannot file a claim for expropriation of the instant land based on Article 72 subparag. 1 of the said Act.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Judge)