(a) Requirements to be eligible for the relocation measures under Article 8 of the Public Compensation of Losses and Losses Act;

(b) Relation to the proviso of Article 5(5) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act and Article 15 of the Rules on Housing Supply

(a) A person who owns a building within a public project implementation district and is deprived of his living base by providing the project implementer with the building in order to implement the relevant public project, shall not be eligible for relocation measures because only the person who is eligible for the relocation measures for public losses and losses, and the person who has not continued to reside in the building, is not a person who has lost his living base due to the provision of the building;

B. According to the proviso of Article 5(5) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, if a person subject to the relocation measures under the same Act supplies a house specially pursuant to Article 15 of the former Rules on Housing Supply (amended by the Ordinance No. 537 of Sep. 1, 1993), a separate relocation measures may not be established. However, since the special supply of a house according to the same rules as the relocation measures under the same Act differs from each other, the special supply of a house according to the same rules under the same Act differs from each other requirements and procedures, even if the project operator has determined the special supply method of a house as the relocation measures, it does not necessarily require that the person who is not a person subject to the relocation measures be specially supplied a house in accordance with the same rules, or whether

A. Article 8(1) of the Act on the Compensation for Public Loss, Article 5(1)(b) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 5(5) of the same Act, Article 27-2(3) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, Article 5 of the Rules on Housing Supply (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 537 of September 1,

A. Supreme Court Decision 86Nu875 delivered on June 23, 1987, 91Nu8692 delivered on April 24, 1992, 92Da14908 delivered on July 28, 1992. Supreme Court Decision 91Nu2649 delivered on January 21, 1992, 92Nu12803 delivered on March 12, 1993

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 17 others, Counsel for defendant-appellant-appellee)

Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor's General Law Office (Attorney Gyeong-soo et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 92Gu26873 delivered on May 26, 1993

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs' grounds of appeal (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate brief submitted after the expiration of the period) are examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal

(a) Article 8 (1) of the Special Act on the Settlement of Residents (hereinafter referred to as the "Special Act on the Settlement of Residents") provides that the project executor shall take measures for resettlement of residents who would lose their base of livelihood due to the provision of land, etc. necessary for the implementation of the public project as prescribed by the Presidential Decree. Article 5 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Special Act on the Settlement of Residents (hereinafter referred to as the "Special Act on the Settlement of Residents") provides that the contents of the measures for resettlement established under Article 8 (1) of the Special Act shall include basic living facilities, such as roads, water supply facilities, and other public facilities, etc. in the settlement area. Paragraph (5) of the same Article provides that the relocation measures under paragraph (1) shall not be established in cases where the one who wishes to move to the settlement area among the migrants under Article 8 (1) of the Special Act on the Settlement of Residents (excluding the owner of the building constructed without obtaining permission or making a report and other persons prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation) who continuously reside in the building concerned as the one who is not subject to take the relocation measures.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is correct and there is no illegality as pointed out by the theory of lawsuit.

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

(2) The proviso of Article 5(5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Special Act provides that a project operator shall be deemed to have established relocation measures when he supplies a housing site or a house to a person subject to relocation measures, such as the Housing Site Development Promotion Act or the Housing Construction Promotion Act. Thus, if a person subject to relocation measures under the Special Act supplies a house under the provisions of Article 15 of the Rules on Housing Supply (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 537 of Sep. 1, 1993; hereinafter the same shall apply), a separate relocation measures need not be established. However, since the special supply of a house under the relocation measures and the rules under the Special Act differs from each other, even if the project operator has determined the special supply method of a house under the Rules as a relocation measures, it is not necessary to determine the person who is not a person subject to relocation measures as a matter of course to specially supply a house

It is not possible to employ any other argument as an independent argument.

(3) Meanwhile, according to the records, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Urban Development Corporation entrusted the establishment of the relocation measures for the implementation of the housing site development project in this case by the defendant as the relocation measures under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Designation of the Prearranged Housing Site Development Area ( March 21, 1989) decided to sell a house to a person who resides outside the district due to a school, workplace, project, etc. as of the date of the designation of the Prearranged housing site development zone. The aforementioned relocation measures are understood to have taken measures for the special supply of a house according to the regulations where a person who is excluded from a person subject to relocation measures under Article 27-2 (3) 3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Special Act on Special Cases Concerning the Relocation of Housing Development owns a house within the project district as of the date of the designation of the Prearranged housing site development zone. However, if the person who owns a house within the project district continuously fails to meet the requirements of the person subject to relocation measures, he/she shall not have the right to specially sell the house as a matter of course.

However, the court below did not make a decision as to the allegation that it was unlawful that the defendant's owner of a building at the time when the defendant had a time limit for the designation of a prearranged area for housing development when implementing relocation measures, but did not establish such relocation measures against the person who acquired a house within the project district after the designation of a prearranged area for housing development. However, if the housing site development project is designated and publicly announced as a planned area for housing development pursuant to the Housing Site Development Promotion Act, it is sufficiently anticipated that the housing within the district will be provided to the project implementer according to the project implementation needs for the project implementer. Thus, it cannot be concluded that the defendant's above time limit under the above relocation measures is illegal because it is not necessary to establish relocation measures against the person who did not reside continuously after the date of designation and public notice, and therefore, the theory of lawsuit is not affected by the conclusion of the court below that the defendant's refusal to implement the relocation measures of this case was legitimate, and eventually, it is therefore without merit.

2. On the second ground for appeal

According to the provisions of Article 8 (1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Establishment of Relocation Measures, it is clear that a person who provided land, etc. necessary for the implementation of a public project does not lose his base of livelihood as a person subject to the relocation measures under the Act on Special Cases Concerning Special Cases Concerning the Establishment of Relocation Measures. Thus, a person who cannot be deemed to have lost his base of livelihood because he did not continuously reside in the relevant house like the plaintiffs, can not file a claim for the establishment of relocation measures regardless of whether he provided the house owned by him by means of consultation or was expropriated under the Land Expropriation Act. Thus, the defendant accepted the house owned by the plaintiffs according to the expropriation procedure of the Land Expropriation Act, so the plaintiffs did not constitute a person subject to relocation measures, and even if there were errors as pointed out in

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed and all 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 Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)