Park-young (Attorney Park Jong-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Busan City Mayor (Attorney Han Han-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

August 18, 1981

The disposition that the Defendant changed the name of the developer to the name of the non-party 1 on July 10, 1980, the name of the non-party 2, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Busan, Seo-gu, Busan, which was originally authorized under the name of the plaintiff on July 10, 1980, shall be revoked.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

First of all, the defendant's attorney's assertion on January 30, 1979 that the defendant approved the implementation of the urban redevelopment project for the land of the Dong-dong 2, Seo-gu, Busan on the plaintiff on January 30, 1979 is an act of approving the redevelopment project and an act of disposing of the land of the same nature as that of the ordinary administrative disposition. Thus, the right to implement the project is transferred as a matter of course to the alteration of rights for the purpose of the project, but it is not transferred by a separate authorization disposition, and it is not a subject of appeal. Even if it can be subject to appeal by family litigation, the defendant's change of the name of the project operator has a supplementary nature to complete the basic act for the plaintiff's transfer of his right to implement the project to another person. Thus, even if there was a defect such as the plaintiff's head of the plaintiff's right to implement the project, as long as there is no defect in the plaintiff's own authorized disposition, the plaintiff's action should be dismissed.

The term "urban redevelopment project" means a building implemented under the conditions as prescribed by the Urban Redevelopment Act in order to recover the rational and efficient use and urban functions of the land in the urban redevelopment district, the maintenance of the site, the creation of the site, and the maintenance of public facilities, and the projects incidental thereto, and such projects are originally performed by the government's public authority. However, since the Minister of Construction and Transportation recognizes the right to implement the project under certain conditions (the Minister of Construction and Transportation's approval or enforcement decree, etc. prescribed by the Urban Redevelopment Act) in order to promote the smooth implementation of the project, the status of the project implementer is accompanied by the rights and obligations under the public law, so it is impossible for the parties to transfer the project right at will and the right to implement the project is succeeded by the administrative disposition of the competent agency under the provisions of the Urban Redevelopment Act, and the right to alter the project owner's title shall be determined by the administrative disposition of the parties to the urban redevelopment district, and thus the administrative disposition null and void shall be an administrative disposition, and as long as the defendant has no interest in the execution of the project, it shall not be subject to appeal.

Then, on January 30, 1979, the defendant submitted to the plaintiff on January 30, 1979 a fair transfer contract and a change of name to the effect that the plaintiff transferred the right to implement the redevelopment project from the non-party, etc. to the non-party, etc. on July 10, 1980, and on January 30, 197, the defendant submitted to the plaintiff on January 30, 1979 a fair transfer contract and a change of name to the effect that the plaintiff transferred the right to implement the redevelopment project from the non-party, etc. to the non-party, etc. on July 10, 1980.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s legal representative is entitled to 50,00,00 won over two years after obtaining authorization for the implementation of the above redevelopment project from the Defendant, and the Plaintiff’s legal representative completed the construction site creation and was hospitalized in the hospital due to the aggravation of high blood pressure by 92 households on the land. On March 22, 1980, the Plaintiff’s legal representative was entitled to 80,000,000 won under the name of the Plaintiff’s legal representative of the Plaintiff’s legal representative, and thus, the Plaintiff’s legal representative did not lawfully transfer the above redevelopment project’s rights to 80,00,000 won under the name of the Plaintiff’s legal representative of the Plaintiff’s legal representative, and thus, the Plaintiff’s legal representative did not have any legal representative’s right to 50,000 won under the name of the Plaintiff’s legal representative, so the Plaintiff’s legal representative’s legal representative’s right to 60,000 won under the name of the Plaintiff’s legal representative’s legal representative, and the Plaintiff’s right to transfer of the above legal representative.

First, prior to the plaintiff's assertion that the transfer of the right to the above redevelopment project is null and void, it is clear that the name change of the owner of the above redevelopment project is possible under the Urban Redevelopment Act, and the redevelopment project implemented under the Urban Redevelopment Act is a public project for the rational and efficient use of the land in the redevelopment area and the restoration of urban functions as well as the maintenance of the land site and the improvement of public facilities (Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the Urban Redevelopment Act). Therefore, the execution of the project inevitably entails changes in the right to the land and the land within the area for the purpose of promoting the utility of the land, and the change of real rights is carried out by the procedure stipulated under the Urban Redevelopment Act, which regulates the transfer of the land or the land owner's right to the land for the public interest. Therefore, it cannot be seen that there is a strict restriction on the execution of the redevelopment project under the Urban Redevelopment Act as well as the change of the title of the land owner's right to the land under the Urban Redevelopment Act.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for the cancellation of the change of the name of the project implementer in this case by the defendant is well-grounded without examining the remaining claims of the plaintiff. Therefore, this is accepted and the costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the losing party.

September 8, 1981

Judges Kim Jong-ju (Presiding Judge)