Whether a developer of a redevelopment project is obligated to prepare temporary accommodation facilities even in cases where the developer has prepared relocation measures for the persons to remove the housing due to the implementation of the redevelopment project (negative)

The main text of Article 34(1) of the Urban Redevelopment Act provides that the developer of the redevelopment project shall not execute the redevelopment project unless he temporarily accommodates the residents of the redevelopment area where the housing was demolished by the execution of the redevelopment project from among the residents of the redevelopment area or the facilities adjacent thereto. The main text of Article 34(1) of the Urban Redevelopment Act provides that the developer of the redevelopment project shall not apply to the case where the developer has prepared the relocation measures, such as granting

Article 34(1) of the Urban Redevelopment Act

Plaintiff 1 and 3 others, Attorneys Han Han-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee)

Head of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 91Gu15203 delivered on April 8, 1992

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Judgment on the ground of appeal No. 1 by the plaintiffs' attorney

The judgment of the court below on the point that theory points out (the fact that the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor acquires each land owned by the plaintiffs in consultation to implement a housing improvement redevelopment project and transfers another land within the redevelopment area to the plaintiffs, and the right to move into the apartment house constructed on that land is also granted) is justified in light of the evidence relation as stated by the court below, and there is no error of law that erroneously recognized the facts in violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, and there is no reason to discuss.

2. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 2

The court below held that the developer of the redevelopment project does not apply to the case where the developer of the redevelopment project provided relocation measures for the plaintiffs, such as granting the right to move in the apartment house for the plaintiffs to be removed by the execution of the redevelopment project, as in the case of this case, because the developer of the redevelopment project does not apply to the case where the developer of the redevelopment project provided relocation measures, and the defendant does not have any obligation to prepare temporary accommodation facilities for the plaintiffs. In light of the provisions of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the above determination by the court below is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the scope of application of temporary accommodation measures as stipulated in Article 34 (1) of the Urban Redevelopment Act, such as the theory of lawsuit, and there is no ground for discussion.

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

Justices Yoon Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)