beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as follows, except where the defendant added the following judgments as to the matters alleged in the court of first instance to the pertinent part, and thus, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional matters to be determined;
A. Defendant’s assertion 1) Whether the ditch of this case was incorporated into M district, and after the completion of the said housing site preparation project, the said park was replaced by the instant park. Since the instant park was a public facility newly established due to the housing site preparation project, the land price was originally acquired the ownership pursuant to Article 83 of the former Urban Planning Act (or Article 65 of the former National Land Planning and Utilization Act). Therefore, the Plaintiffs cannot be deemed to own some of the instant park, and thus, there is no right to seek cancellation of the ownership transfer registration under Defendant’s name.
B. Determination 1) Article 83(1) of the former Urban Planning Act (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, Act No. 6655, Feb. 4, 2002) provides that public facilities newly installed by an executor who is an administrative agency by implementing an urban planning project shall gratuitously vest in the State or a local government to manage such facilities. The aforementioned provision applies only to cases where a project operator, who is an administrative agency, acquires land necessary for newly installed public facilities by means of a contract under private law or a procedure under public law, etc., and installs public facilities and completes the project; and it does not apply to cases where the State or a local government installs public facilities without lawful acquisition of land necessary for public facilities and occupies and uses them (see Supreme Court Decisions 2012Du2358, Jul. 10, 2014; 2013Da2127, Mar. 27, 2014; 2013Da2127, Mar. 27, 2014>