The validity of the modified authorization of the urban planning project implementation plan which was completed after the project implementation period prescribed in the public notice of authorization of the implementation plan

[1] Article 25 of the former Urban Planning Act (amended by Act No. 4541 of March 6, 1993) (see Article 88 of the current National Land Planning and Utilization Act)

Supreme Court Decision 80Da3269 Decided December 22, 1981 (Gong1982, 177) Supreme Court Decision 90Nu971 Decided November 26, 1991 (Gong1992, 323) Supreme Court Decision 94Nu7386 Decided March 3, 1995 (Gong195Sang, 162) Supreme Court Decision 200Du5142 Decided October 13, 2000 (Gong200Ha, 2346)

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 1 other (Attorney Lee Han-hoon et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Central Land Tribunal and one other (Attorney Kim Chang-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2002Nu 11952 delivered on July 4, 2003

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. As to the misapprehension of legal principles as to land use

A. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its reasoning after compiling the adopted evidence, and held that the project which is the purpose of using the underground portion of the land of this case is an urban planning project under the Urban Planning Act, and its contents are construction works of subway 3, 4, urban railway lines and stations, but its incidental acceptance or compensation work is included in the above project in addition to the construction work of the main urban railway lines and stations. Thus, if the project execution period has been lawfully extended for such expropriation and compensation work, it cannot be deemed that the above urban planning project has been completed or its implementation plan has expired merely because the construction work of subway 3, 4 lines has not been completed or it has not been completed at the time of the application for the decision on the use of the land of this case. The above application was legally completed within the execution period of the above urban planning project, and even if the subway 3, 4 lines had been completed and opened, it cannot be deemed unlawful to extend the execution period for compensation work as above.

In light of the records, the above recognition and determination by the court below are justifiable, and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to land expropriation or use as shown in the grounds of appeal.

B. The executor of the urban planning project shall file an application for adjudication on the acquisition of land owned by another person or expropriation of land necessary for the urban planning project under private law within the project implementation period specified in the authorization of the implementation plan of the urban planning project notified at the latest. If the acquisition procedure is not prior to the project implementation period, the authorization of the implementation plan of the urban planning project shall be invalidated, and if the implementation plan is extended after authorization of the implementation plan expires, the authorization of the implementation plan shall be restored to its effect and shall not be retroactively effective. However, since the authorization of the implementation plan of the urban planning project is a disposition that establishes the authority to implement the urban planning project, the authorization of the implementation plan of the urban planning project shall not be different from the initial authorization, and the authorization of the implementation plan after the expiration of the project implementation period specified in the public notice of the authorization of the implementation plan of the urban planning project shall also be effective if it satisfies the requirements for a new authorization (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 90Nu971, Nov. 26, 191; 200Du5142,

The court below held that although the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor changed the project implementation permission and announced it to extend the project implementation period after the expiration of the period of implementation specified in the permission to implement the existing urban planning project for a long period of time, the change of the permission to implement the project seems to have satisfied the requirements for the permission to implement the new urban planning project, it shall be deemed to have the effect as the permission to implement the new urban planning project, and even if there are some omissions in the contents of the above notification, it shall not be deemed to have been effective as the permission to implement the new urban planning project on the ground that it is not serious and obvious defects, and it shall not be deemed to have taken effect as the permission to implement the new urban planning project on the ground that the change of the permission to implement the project and its notification

In light of the above legal principles, the above determination by the court below is justifiable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to land expropriation or use, such as the grounds of appeal.

2. As to the misapprehension of legal principles as to the necessity of the adjudication on use

A. The court below rejected the plaintiffs' assertion that the use of the land of this case was unlawful on the grounds that it is clear that Defendant Seoul Metropolitan Government subway Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant Construction Corporation") needs to use the underground part of the land of this case, and that the Defendant Construction Corporation paid unjust enrichment on the ground that it did not have any legal cause for its use, and it is not necessary to use the land in accordance with legitimate procedures.

In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is justifiable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the necessity of adjudication on use such as the grounds for appeal.

B. The court below rejected the plaintiffs' assertion that the ruling of this case was against the principle of trust protection and was unlawful on the ground that the ruling of this case cannot be applied without examining the other points in this case where there is no assertion or proof about the plaintiffs' acts with trust.

In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is justifiable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the principle of trust protection, such as the grounds for appeal.

C. The court below rejected the plaintiffs' assertion that the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor modified the permission for the implementation of urban planning projects, modified the plan, and publicly announced it on the ground that the above subway 3 and 4 construction projects are delegated to the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor, etc., on the ground that the change of the permission for the implementation of urban planning projects or the approval for the modification of the implementation plan and the approval for the modification of the implementation plan to the non-administrative agency, as in this case, under the Urban Planning Act and its Enforcement Decree, etc., which were enforced from the time of the application for the permission for the implementation of urban planning projects, since the urban planning project was implemented in accordance with the permission for the implementation of urban planning projects or the authorization for the implementation plan under the Urban Railroad Act,

In light of the relevant laws and regulations, the above determination by the court below is justifiable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to delegation of authority like the grounds of appeal.

4. As to the misunderstanding of legal principles as to compensation for losses caused by price decline in remaining land

A. In full view of the adopted evidence, the lower court rejected the Plaintiffs’ assertion that each appraisal, which was the basis of the instant objection, was unlawful, by deeming that each appraisal, which was the basis of the instant objection, did not have any damage to the use of the building of the instant land, calculated only the lower rate of underground utilization, and assessed the lower rate of multi-level utilization, and subsequently, did not interfere with the use of the building.

In light of the records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are justified, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence as to the determination of the multi-level utilization low rate, such as the grounds of appeal, or any misconception of facts due to insufficient deliberation

B. According to the records, the plaintiffs owned three lots of land, such as 28-1 square meters, 670.8 square meters, 28-43 square meters, 19.1 square meters, 28-4 square meters and 267.1 square meters (hereinafter "the land in this case"). The defendant Corporation, while conducting urban railroad construction business, made a decision on the use of the underground part of the land in this case owned by the plaintiffs, which is located under 28-1 square meters in Jung-gu, Seoul, Jung-gu, and the subway also installed a structure of reinforced concrete, subway Do reinforced concrete, subway tunnel, subway tunnel, and subway tunnel, etc. The plaintiffs did not know the remaining parts of the building in this case, which were installed before the underground part of the building in this case, and the remaining parts of the building in this case, which were owned by the plaintiffs, were not the maximum building-to-land ratio of 50% and 30% of the remaining parts of the building in this case, which were owned by the plaintiffs, and were not the plaintiffs in this part of this case.

The decision of the court below is justified in rejecting the plaintiffs' claims seeking compensation for damages due to price decrease in the remaining land, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to compensation for damages due to price decrease in the remaining land.

5. Conclusion

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

Justices Shin Shin-chul (Presiding Justice)