(a) Where only the project implementation authorization under Article 12 of the Urban Redevelopment Act was granted, and there is no public notice of the approval of the management and disposal plan, the principal owner of the right to use and benefit from the land or the surface of the land within the redevelopment area (=previous owner) and in such cases, the legitimacy of the project implementer’s using and benefit from the said land without the procedure

B. Whether Article 58(1) of the Urban Redevelopment Act applies mutatis mutandis to an order to suspend the use and profit under Article 65(2) of the Urban Redevelopment Act (negative)

A. The project implementation authorization under Article 12 of the Urban Redevelopment Act is merely to grant the status or right to implement the redevelopment project to the person who intends to implement the redevelopment project, and accordingly, the project implementer does not directly acquire the right to use or profit from the land or the ground water within the redevelopment area, but also has the right to use or benefit from the previous land or the ground water owner. Therefore, when the project implementer intends to use or benefit from the land within the redevelopment area without the public notice of the approval of the management and disposal plan, he/she shall undertake the procedures for expropriation or use as prescribed by the above Act, and it shall not be deemed a legitimate occupancy or use even if he/she occupies or uses the land for the implementation of the redevelopment project, unless it takes such procedures.

B. Since Article 41(7) of the Urban Redevelopment Act provides for a special provision on Article 58(1) of the Urban Redevelopment Act concerning an order to suspend the use and profit-making under Article 41(7), where authorization of an urban redevelopment plan under the Urban Redevelopment Act is publicly notified, Article 58(1) of the Urban Redevelopment Act shall not apply mutatis mutandis under Article 65(2) of the same Act. Therefore, where authorization of a management and disposal plan is publicly notified under Article 41(5) of the Urban Redevelopment Act, the use and profit-making of the previous owner, etc. of the object shall be suspended without requiring an order to suspend the use and profit-making, and the implementer may use and profit

(a)Article 41(a) of the Urban Redevelopment Act; Article 12(b) of the same Act; Article 65(2) of the same Act; Article 58(1) of the Land Readjustment and Rearrangement Projects Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 92Da25809 delivered on December 22, 1992 (Gong1993,559). Supreme Court Decision 81Da541 delivered on July 13, 1982 (Gong1982,746) (defluence)

[Judgment of the court below]

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 90Na56337 delivered on May 29, 1991

Each appeal shall be dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against each appellant.

1. We examine the Defendants’ grounds of appeal.

A. On the first ground for appeal

The project implementation authorization under Article 12 of the Urban Redevelopment Act is merely granted by the supervisory authority the status or right to implement the redevelopment project to the person who intends to implement the redevelopment project. Accordingly, the project implementer does not directly acquire the right to use or benefit from the land or its ground in the redevelopment area. Therefore, the owner of the previous land or its ground shall still have the right to benefit.

Therefore, even though the provisions of Article 41(7) of the Urban Redevelopment Act do not purport that the project implementer shall commence the redevelopment project only after the approval and public notice of the management and disposal plan, such as the theory of lawsuit, the implementation of the redevelopment project has been granted to the Defendants, and even if the project implementer intends to use or profit from the land within the redevelopment area without the public notice of the approval of the management and disposal plan, it shall take the procedure of expropriation or use under the above Act, and the occupancy and use of the redevelopment project for the implementation of the redevelopment project shall not be deemed legitimate occupancy and use.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as the theory of lawsuit.

B. On the second ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below recognized the fact that the defendants confirmed the liquidation money for the land owned by the plaintiff but did not receive the liquidation money. The above recognition is just and acceptable when examining the records. Thus, the plaintiff cannot be deemed as having approved or ratified the management and disposition plan, and the court below also rejected the defendant's assertion indirectly that the plaintiff approved or ratified it. Thus, the judgment of the court below is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the omission of judgment or ratification, such as the theory of lawsuit, which affected the conclusion of the judgment

2. We examine the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal.

Article 65(2) of the Urban Redevelopment Act provides, “Except as otherwise provided in this Act, the provisions on replotting in the Land Readjustment Projects Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to a management and disposal plan.” Article 58(1) of the Land Readjustment Projects Act provides, “The implementer may suspend the use or profit-making of the land or the part thereof from the date on which the date is set by the landowner, lessee, etc. concerning the land for which a decision not to designate replotting has been made.” However, Article 41(7) of the Urban Redevelopment Act provides, “If there is a public announcement under the provisions of paragraph (5) of this Article (referring to a public announcement of a disposal and disposal plan), the owner, etc. of the previous land shall not use or profit-making from the previous land until the date of the public announcement of the sale and disposal plan under the provisions of Article 48(5) of the Urban Redevelopment Projects Act shall not be deemed to have been applied mutatis mutandis to the case where an implementer obtains the consent of the developer, so it shall not be deemed that there is no room to apply the said provision to the said public announcement under the Urban Redevelopment Act.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles of the Urban Redevelopment Act and the Land Rearrangement and Rearrangement Projects Act, such as theory of lawsuit.

3. Therefore, each appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice) The final territory of this case, which is the leap Kim Yong-ho, the leap-ho, the leap-ho, the leap-ho, the leap Kim Jong-ho, the leap Kim Jong-ho,