[1] Whether the designation of the redevelopment area, which was made by the former Act after the enforcement of the Act on the Provisional Measures for the Promotion of Housing Improvement, becomes invalid due to the invalidation of the relevant statute (negative)

[2] In a case where the designation of a redevelopment area is revoked under the former Urban Redevelopment Act and the former Urban Planning Act after the invalidation of the former Act on the Promotion of Housing Improvement, whether the ownership of the land is naturally reverted to the original owner (affirmative)

[1] In full view of the provisions of Articles 4(1), 5(5) and (7) of the former Urban Redevelopment Act (amended by Act No. 3646 of Dec. 31, 1982); Article 2 subparag. 5 of the former Urban Planning Act (amended by Act No. 3642 of Dec. 31, 1982); Article 12 of the former Urban Planning Act (amended by Act No. 3642 of Dec. 31, 1982), the designation of a redevelopment district under the said Act shall not lose its effect due to the lapse of the implementation period, even if the designation of a redevelopment district becomes effective due to the lapse of the relevant implementation period; and it shall be deemed that the designation of a redevelopment district under the said Act was designated under the former Urban Planning Act (amended by Act No. 3646 of Dec. 31, 1982); and may be amended by the alteration of the contents of a redevelopment project, such as the cancellation of the designation of an urban planning project.

[2] Where the ownership was transferred to a local government because the land was designated as a redevelopment area under Articles 2 and 5 (1) of the former Act on the Aggravated Measures for the Promotion of Housing Improvement (amended by Act No. 2581 of March 5, 1973), but the local government did not commence the redevelopment project until the execution period of the redevelopment project, the Minister of Construction and Transportation has cancelled the designation of the redevelopment area under Article 4 of the former Urban Redevelopment Act (amended by Act No. 3646 of December 31, 1982), Article 12 of the former Urban Planning Act (amended by Act No. 3642 of December 31, 1982), and the ownership of the land is naturally reverted to the original owner by the cancellation of the designation of the redevelopment area.

[1] Articles 4(1), 5(5) and (7) of the former Urban Redevelopment Act (amended by Act No. 3646 of Dec. 31, 1982); Articles 2 subparag. 5 and 12 of the former Urban Planning Act (amended by Act No. 3642 of Dec. 31, 1982); Articles 2, 5 and 7 of the former Act on the Promotion of Housing Improvement; Article 6 of the former Act on the Temporary Measures for the Promotion of Housing Improvement (amended by Act No. 2581 of Mar. 5, 197; Article 6 of the former Act on the Promotion of Housing Improvement (amended by Presidential Decree No. 6682 of May 22, 197); Article 2 subparag. 5 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Urban Redevelopment Act (amended by Act No. 3646 of Dec. 31, 1982); Article 36(1)5 of the former Act on the Promotion of Housing Improvement (amended by Act)

Korea

[Judgment of the court below]

Seoul High Court Decision 99Na20492 delivered on November 18, 1999

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the Defendant’s provisional measures on December 1, 1973, the Minister of Construction and Transportation, under the provision of Article 2 of the former Act on the Provisional Measures for the Promotion of Housing Improvement ( enacted by Act No. 2581 of March 5, 1973 and effective until December 31, 1981; hereinafter referred to as the “Temporary Measures Act”), which included the Plaintiff’s land listed in the separate list No. 470 of the judgment below (hereinafter referred to as “each forest of this case”) as to the temporary measures for the cancellation of the designation of the above redevelopment area, which included the same area no longer than 172,30 square meters in the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Gwanak-gu, 200 square meters, for the purpose of housing improvement, as well as the cancellation of the designation of the redevelopment area no later than 50 square meters, the Minister of Construction and Transportation had the effect of changing the ownership of the forest of this case to 30,000 square meters.

2. In full view of the provisions of Articles 4(1) and 5(5) and (7) of the former Urban Redevelopment Act (amended by Act No. 3646 of Dec. 31, 1982), Article 2 subparag. 5 and Article 12 of the former Urban Planning Act (amended by Act No. 3642 of Dec. 31, 1982), the designation of a redevelopment district under the said Act as at the time the implementation period expires after the lapse of the implementation period does not lose its validity due to the invalidation of the statute. The designation of a redevelopment district under the Urban Redevelopment Act shall be deemed to have been designated under the Urban Planning Act, and the contents of a redevelopment project, such as the cancellation of the designation, may be modified. According to the records, even if the Defendant did not start the project within the implementation period of the said redevelopment district, the Minister of Construction and Transportation did not automatically change the ownership of the forest under Article 154 of the former Urban Planning Act after the cancellation of the designation of the redevelopment district under the same Act.

Therefore, on the premise that the cancellation of the designation of the redevelopment area as to the land of this case was made based on the Act on Temporary Measures, the defendant's ground of appeal that the judgment below erred in the application of the Act on Temporary Measures by Han City Corporation is without merit.

3. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Cho Cho-Un (Presiding Justice)