A right relationship held before a person who purchases a specific part of a site or constructed facility in a urban redevelopment project in accordance with a management and disposal plan notifies the sale thereof.

According to Article 49(1) of the Urban Redevelopment Act, since a person who purchases a building site or building facility according to a publicly notified management and disposal plan acquires ownership of a building site or building facility on the date following the public notice of sale in lots, a person who is entitled to purchase a building site or building facility before the public notice of sale in lots has the right to purchase a building site or building facility in accordance with a management and disposal plan and does not acquire the ownership immediately according to the management and disposal plan, and there is no right to acquire the building site or building facility in the part of

Article 49(1) of the Urban Redevelopment Act

Supreme Court en banc Decision 91Da22094 Decided December 22, 1992 (Gong1993,540)

Plaintiff 1 and two others, Attorneys Yoon Young-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee

Gyeong Building Co., Ltd., Counsel for defendant-appellee

Seoul High Court Decision 91Na5657 delivered on May 8, 1992

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Judgment on the ground of appeal No. 1 by the plaintiffs' attorney

The court below affirmed the judgment below's reasoning that the defendant applied for approval of the use of the whole building of this case to the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City on November 14, 198, where the plaintiffs did not deliver the land to be contributed to the redevelopment project and it was impossible to undergo an inspection of the completion of construction of the building of this case due to the relation that the plaintiffs failed to properly maintain the public facilities to be constructed on the land within the redevelopment project, and in making an agreement with the plaintiffs who are the owners of the land within the redevelopment area on November 12, 198 for the determination of the management and disposal plan, taking into account the ratio of each project cost, it is necessary to specify the location and size of the part to be owned by each owner of the building of this case as to the sectional ownership of the building of this case and the part to be owned by the plaintiffs and the defendant as to the remaining part of the building of this case to be owned by the plaintiffs, and it did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the plaintiffs' request for approval of the use of the whole building of this case.

In conclusion, we cannot accept this issue merely because it criticizes the judgment of the court below that there was an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to compensation for damages on the premise that the determination of evidence and the recognition of facts belonging to the exclusive jurisdiction of the court below is criticized or inconsistent with the facts recognized

2. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 2

The court below held as to the conjunctive claim of the plaintiffs, and held that since the building of this case is owned by the owners of the land or building in the redevelopment area including the plaintiffs and the defendant, until the public notice of the sale order on July 15, 1989 as to the redevelopment project of this case is given, the ratio of their shares is the sale ratio according to the management and disposal plan. Thus, since the lease income accrued until July 15, 1989 from the provisional use is also owned by the owners of the land or building within the redevelopment area, the defendant's claim that the amount equivalent to the plaintiffs' share ratio should be returned as unjust enrichment among the lease income he acquired by the owners of the land or building within the redevelopment area. However, according to Article 49 (1) of the Urban Redevelopment Act, the court below's decision that the purchaser of the land or building facility in this case acquires the ownership of the land or building facility after the public notice of the sale order is given, the person who purchased the land or building facility before the public notice of the sale order is merely acquired the ownership of the land or building facility in this case.

The issue is not accepted because it is merely to criticize the legitimate recognition judgment of the court below on the premise of the contrary view.

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.