[1] The requirements to enable a non-administrative agency implementer to obtain land through consultation as a public project implementer under the Public Compensation for Losses and Losses of Land

[2] Whether a public project operator may entrust the acquisition of land under the Special Act on Compensation for Public Loss to the head of a Si/Gun/Gu (affirmative with qualification)

[3] The requirements to take effect for public loss compensation under the Special Act on the Compensation of Losses

[4] The case holding that the judgment of the court below which recognized that the competent local government was entrusted to purchase the land by a public project operator who is not an administrative agency for the tourist resort development project and purchased the land for that purpose, even though it is sufficient to view that the local government itself was a public project operator to purchase the land under the Special Act on the Compensation for Public Loss from the status of the public project operator, by making the urban planning project which is implemented

[1] In order for a person who is not an administrative agency to obtain a consultation on the compensation for public losses, the purchaser shall be the executor of the public project (Article 2 subparag. 3 and Article 3 of the same Act), the executor of the public project shall be the project that can expropriate or use the land, etc. under Article 3 of the Land Expropriation Act (Article 2 subparag. 2 of the same Act). Since the executor of the urban planning project is entitled to expropriate the land necessary for the urban planning project, the urban planning project is required to be the said public project (Article 3 subparag. 8 of the Land Expropriation Act, Articles 29(1) and 30(1) of the former Urban Planning Act (amended by Act No. 4175, Dec. 30, 1989). However, in order for a person who is not an administrative agency to implement the urban planning project, the purchaser shall obtain a permit from the head of the competent Si/Gun with the approval of the Minister of Construction and Transportation, and the head of the competent Si/Gun shall publicly notify the contents of the permission (Article 30(2 and Article 24).

[2] In light of the purport of the former Tourism Complex Development Promotion Act (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda of Act No. 3910 of Dec. 31, 1986), Article 35 of the Housing Construction Promotion Act, Article 20 of the Industrial Sites and Development Act, Article 32 of the former Korea Land Development Corporation Act (wholly amended by Act No. 3843 of May 12, 1986), and the purpose of special provisions for entrustment that the purchase of land and compensation for each project may be entrusted to the Governor, the head of a Si, or the head of a Gun, etc. of a Si, Gun, etc., to the head of the competent local government for the purchase of land, etc. necessary for the implementation of a public project (Article 8(4) of the same Act), and the purpose of separately establishing the basis for entrusting the head of the competent local government with the purchase of land, etc. (Article 8(4) of the same Act). In addition to cases where there are grounds for the above individual laws and regulations, consultation cannot be entrusted to the public project operator directly.

[3] The acquisition by consultation under the Special Act on Special Cases Concerning the Compensation for Public Loss takes the form of a contract for sale and purchase of land in the form of a private law, but the "public project" and "public project" under the Land Expropriation Act are identical to the contents and scope of the contract, and the property rights that can be acquired by consultation under the same Special Act can be immediately expropriated by the Land Expropriation Act, and the overall principles and basic spirit of compensation in both Acts are identical to those in both Acts, and there are various public law regulations in the process of acquisition through consultation under the same Special Act. In light of the fact that there are many cases in which the method of compulsory acquisition under the Land Expropriation Act remains in de facto follow-up measures, and there are many cases in which the owner of land, etc. complies with the agreement against his/her will, the same special act is practically a public project similar to the Land Expropriation Act, so there is a need for public interest as in the case of acquisition by consultation under the same Special Act and must pay reasonable compensation, and it does not have the effect of acquisition by consultation under the same Act.

[4] The case holding that the judgment of the court below which recognized that the competent local government was entrusted to purchase the land by a public project operator who is not an administrative agency for the tourist resort development project and purchased the land for that purpose, even though it is sufficient to view that the local government itself was a public project operator in the status of the public project operator to purchase the land under the Special Act on the Compensation for Public Loss and Compensation of Losses, by making the urban planning project

[1] Article 24 (Article 59), Article 29 (1) (Article 67 (1) of the former Urban Planning Act (amended by Act No. 4175, Apr. 30, 1989); Article 30 (Article 68 of the current Act); Article 2 subparagraph 2, Article 3, and Article 3 of the Act on the Compensation of Public Loss and Loss of Land; Article 3 subparagraph 8 of the Land Expropriation Act / [2] Article 2 subparagraph 3, Article 8 (4) of the Act on the Compensation of Public Loss; Article 3, Article 19 of the former Tourism and Development Act (amended by Act No. 3910, Dec. 31, 1986); Article 35 of the Housing Construction Promotion Act; Article 30 of the former Act on the Promotion of Industrial Base Development (amended by Act No. 4216, Jan. 13, 190); Article 29 (2) of the former Land Expropriation Act (amended by Act No. 3942, Dec. 13, 19, 496 of the current Act)

[3] Constitutional Court Order 92Hun-Ga15 through 17, 20 through 24 decided Feb. 24, 1994 (Hun-Ga5, 191)

Hansung Tourism Development Co., Ltd. (Attorney Park Jong-ho, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Defendant 1 and 21 others (AttorneysRa Byung-jin et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 97Na12862 delivered on October 27, 1998

The part of the lower judgment regarding the ancillary claim is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. The remainder of the Plaintiff’s appeal is dismissed

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to the ground of appeal on the primary claim

원심판결 이유에 의하면, 원심은 판시와 같은 기초사실을 인정한 다음, 원고가 수원시로부터 원천유원지 중 이 사건 G공구에 관한 도시계획사업 시행자로 내정받은 상태에서 G공구 내의 토지들을 미리 매수하기 위하여 위 도시계획사업 중 G공구개발사업을 공공용지의취득및손실보상에관한특례법(이하 '특례법'이라 한다)상의 공공사업으로 하여 수원시와의 사이에 특례법에 기한 위수탁협약을 체결하고, 매수위탁을 받은 수원시는 특례법에 기하여 협의매수를 하였으며, 토지 매도인들은 수원시에 대하여 원고에게 직접 이 사건 토지들에 관한 소유권이전등기를 경료해 주기로 약정하였으므로 토지 매도인 본인들 내지 그 상속인들인 피고들은 원고에게 이 사건 토지들에 관하여 소유권이전등기절차를 이행하여야 할 의무가 있다는 원고의 주장에 대하여, 특례법에 기한 협의취득을 하기 위해서는 매수인은 공공사업을 시행하는 자이어야 하고(특례법 제2조 제3호, 제3조), 공공사업은 토지수용법 제3조의 규정에 의하여 토지 등을 수용 또는 사용할 수 있는 사업이어야 하는데(특례법 제2조 제2호), 도시계획사업 시행자는 도시계획사업에 필요한 토지를 수용할 수 있으므로 도시계획사업은 위 공공사업이 된다 할 것이나{토지수용법 제3조 제8호, 구 도시계획법(1989. 12. 30. 법률 제4175, 4183호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제29조 제1항, 제30조 제1항}, 행정청이 아닌 자가 도시계획사업을 시행하기 위해서는 건설부장관의 승인을 받은 관할 시장 또는 군수의 허가를 받아야 하고, 시장 또는 군수는 그 허가내용을 고시하여야 하므로(구 도시계획법 제30조 제2항, 제24조) 행정청이 아닌 도시계획사업 시행자는 원칙적으로 위와 같은 허가와 고시가 있은 후에야 토지의 수용에 나아갈 수 있고 그 때 비로소 특례법이 정하는 공공사업 시행자로서 토지의 협의취득이 가능하다 고 할 것이고, 또한 구 관광단지개발촉진법 (1986. 12. 31. 법률 제3910호 부칙 제2조에 의하여 폐지) 제6조, 주택건설촉진법 제35조, 산업입지및개발에관한법률 제20조, 구 한국토지개발공사법(1986. 5. 12. 법률 제3843호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제32조 등 개별 법규에 각 사업을 위한 토지의 매수 업무와 보상업무를 도지사·시장·군수 등에게 위탁할 수 있다는 위탁 근거규정을 특별히 마련하여 둔 취지와 특례법이 공공사업의 시행에 필요한 토지 등을 제공함으로써 생활근거를 상실하게 되는 자(이주자)를 위한 토지 등의 매수 등의 경우에만 관할 지방자치단체장에게 위탁할 수 있는 근거(특례법 제8조 제4항)를 별도로 마련한 취지에 비추어 보면, 위와 같은 개별 법규의 근거가 있는 경우 및 이주대책의 경우 이외에는 특례법에 기한 협의취득은 시장·군수 등에게 위탁할 수 없고 공공사업 시행자가 직접 행하여야 하는 것으로 보아야 할 것이고, 특례법 제2조 제3호에 사업시행자의 위임에 의하여 취득 등의 업무를 행하는 자를 사업시행자에 포함시킨다고 규정한 것은 개별 법규 중에 구체적으로 위임의 근거를 둔 경우에 이에 기하여 위임한 경우를 의미한다고 보아야 할 것 이며, 한편 특례법에 기한 협의취득은 비록 법형식에 있어서는 사법상 매매계약의 형태를 취하고 있으나 특례법에 규정된 '공공사업'과 토지수용법에 규정된 '공익사업'은 그 내용과 범위가 동일하여 특례법에 의하여 협의취득될 수 있는 재산권은 바로 토지수용법에 의하여 수용될 수 있고 양 법률에 있어서의 손실보상에 관한 전체적인 원리와 기본정신이 동일한 기조 위에 서 있으며, 특례법상의 협의취득의 과정에는 여러 가지 공법적 규제가 있는 점 등을 고려하면, 특례법의 배후에는 토지수용법에 기한 강제취득 방법이 사실상의 후속조치로 남아 있어 토지 등의 소유자로서는 협의에 불응하면 바로 수용을 당하게 된다는 심리적 강박감으로 인하여 실제로는 그 의사에 반하여 협의에 응하는 경우가 많기 때문에, 특례법은 실질적으로는 토지수용법과 비슷한 공법적 기능을 수행하고 있다 할 것이니 (헌법재판소 1994. 2. 24. 선고 92헌가15 내지 17, 20 내지 24 결정 참조), 특례법에 기한 협의취득의 경우에도 공용수용의 경우처럼 공익적 필요성이 있고, 법률에 의거하여야 하며, 정당한 보상을 지급하여야 한다는 요건을 갖추어야 할 것이고, 위 요건이 갖추어 지지 아니한 특례법에 기한 협의취득은 효력이 발생하지 아니한다 고 할 것이라고 전제한 후, 원고가 1986. 10. 27. 수원시로부터 이 사건 G공구에 관한 도시계획(유원지)사업의 시행자로 허가받기 이전에 이미 수원시로부터 국민관광지 투자자의 지위와는 별도로 국민관광지 투자사업과 동일한 사업내용을 가진 이 사건 G공구에 관한 도시계획사업의 시행자로 내정받았다고 보기에 미흡할 뿐만 아니라, 앞에서 본 제반 법규정과 특례법의 법리를 고려하여 볼 때 ① 행정청이 아닌 자인 원고가 설사 수원시에 의하여 도시계획사업 시행자로 허가를 받기로 내정된 상태에 있었다고 하더라도 단지 내정만 된 상태에서는 특례법이 정하는 공공사업 시행자로서 특례법에 기한 협의매수에 나아갈 수 없다고 보는 것이 상당하고, ② 또한 수원시가 원고와 사이에 이 사건 위수탁협약을 체결하고 그에 기하여 이 사건 협의매수를 할 수 있는지에 관하여 특례법을 비롯한 관련 법령상 아무런 근거를 찾을 수 없으므로, 결국 수원시와 피고 22를 제외한 나머지 토지 매도인들과 사이의 협의매수는 위 ①, ②의 이유로, 원고가 도시계획사업 시행자로 허가·고시된 후에 이루어진 수원시와 피고 22와 사이의 협의매수는 위 ②의 이유로 모두 그 효력이 없다고 판단하고, 따라서 이 사건 협의매수가 도시계획사업 시행내정자 내지 시행자인 원고로부터 용지매수 업무를 위탁받은 수원시에 의해 이루어진 것으로서 유효하다는 것을 전제로 한 원고의 주위적 청구는 나머지 주장사실에 관하여 나아가 살펴 볼 필요 없이 이유 없다고 하여 이를 배척하였다.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in comparison with records, we affirm the judgment of the court below, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the legal status of the plaintiff under the Urban Planning Act and the Act on Special Cases concerning the Trust Agreement or the legal nature and validity thereof

The ground of appeal on this part is not accepted.

2. As to the ground of appeal on the conjunctive claim

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's conjunctive assertion that, if the plaintiff is a public project operator prescribed by the Act on Special Cases, and the Suwon City is valid by consultation based on the premise that it is the entrusted person under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Purchase of Ownership, it can be deemed that the Suwon City voluntarily purchased the land under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Purchase of Ownership on the ground that it is a public project operator under the status of the urban planning project, and the Suwon City agreed to register the ownership of the land in this case through consultation with the plaintiff on the ground that it is a public project operator under the status of the executor of the urban planning project under the former Special Cases concerning the Special Cases concerning the Purchase of Ownership. The plaintiff's conjunctive assertion that the buyer of the land in this case or the defendants, who are his heir, of Suwon City, sought the implementation of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer of the land in this case from Suwon City on the premise that the purchase of the land in this case was conducted by the plaintiff's entrustment of the purchase and the purchase of the land in this case cannot be viewed as a public project within the deadline of the former Tourism Promotion Act.

However, according to the facts and records duly admitted by the court below, the following facts can be recognized.

On August 1, 1972, 197. 8. 8. 1. 8. 1. 1. 8. 1. 1. 2. 1. 1. 1. 8. 1. 1. 3. 1. 1. 4. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 2. 3. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 2. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 2. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 2. 1. 1. 1. 2. 1. 3 of 1982 1. 1. 2. 3. 1. 1. 2. 2. 1. 3 of 1. 1. 1. 3. 2. 3. 1. 2. 3. 1. 2. 3. 3. 3. 2. 3. 3. 3. 1. 3. 1. 3. 3. 3. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 2. 3. 3. 3. 3. 1. 1. 1. 1. 3. 3. 1.

On the other hand, the Suwon-si, which belongs to the original amusement park and the original tourist destination, shall be a public project to implement the urban planning project that is implemented in parallel with the tourist resort development project as well as the urban planning project that is implemented. However, it is sufficient to deem that it was purchased by consultation in the status of the public project operator.

Nevertheless, without sufficiently examining the aforementioned various circumstances, the court below acknowledged that the Suwon City did not have concluded the above consignment agreement or included an expression "the incorporation of the above consignment agreement into the development project of the national tourist destination" in the public notice of the compensation plan as necessary for the urban planning project, and concluded that the purchase of this case was made for the tourist development project and for the plaintiff, and dismissed the conjunctive claim without further examining whether the Suwon City had a right to claim for ownership transfer registration against the defendants and the plaintiff had a right to claim ownership transfer registration against Suwon City. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the rules of evidence or failing to exhaust all deliberations, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

The ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below regarding the conjunctive claim is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. The plaintiff's remaining appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)