The case holding that the land incorporated in the land readjustment project district by Seoul Special Metropolitan City cannot be the unjust enrichment by using it as a road.

It is reasonable to view that Article 2 subparagraph 1(a) of the Urban Planning Act, which was in force at the time of June 21, 1966, includes the installation of road when an urban planning is implemented. Therefore, if the Seoul Special Metropolitan City is incorporated into a facility area for the rearrangement of land partitioning, Seoul Special Metropolitan City has a legal ground for the use of the said land as a road on a separate basis from the Road Act, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Urban Planning Act.

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al.

Attorney Kim Jong-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 72Na937 delivered on October 6, 1972

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the Defendant’s agent’s grounds of appeal.

The court below states to the following purport in its ruling.

In other words, the Minister of Construction and Transportation announced the change of the street zone of urban planning under Article 2 subparagraph 1, Article 4, and Article 7 of the Urban Planning Act, which was in force on June 21, 1966, and announced the change of the street zone of urban planning, and recognized the fact that the land in this case owned by the plaintiff was incorporated into the zone for the land rearrangement and rearrangement and rearrangement and rearrangement and rearrangement and rearrangement and rearrangement and also did not make a public announcement of the recognition of routes under Article 19 of the Road Act, Article 6 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, Article 25 of the same Enforcement Rule, and Article 8 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, and the defendant did not use the above land as a road without any legal cause, thereby gaining profits from the rent party and causing damages equivalent to the above amount to the plaintiff. However, the purport of Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Urban Planning Act at the time of implementation of urban planning is reasonable, and therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the defendant's land in this case includes the important road facilities related to the road.

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. This decision is delivered with the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Han-jin (Presiding Justice)