Open Decision Ledger · Constitutional, administrative & state liability
Relocation compensation fixed at the business plan approval notice
Supreme Court, Jan. 30, 2020, 2018Du66067 (judgment)
No holding summary · checked against points at issue. The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Case name: 기타(일반행정)
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Under the former Urban and Residential Environment Maintenance Act, is the compensation content for relocation and moving expenses payable to tenants of residential buildings fixed in principle on the date of the business plan approval notice, does the lapse of the period stated in a valid business plan make that plan and the acquisition of land carried out within it void retroactively, and who may claim relocation expenses and from when does delay interest run?
Holding
Yes. The compensation content is fixed in principle on the date the business plan was approved and notified, and tenants whose content was so fixed may claim the relocation expenses so determined; the duty to pay relocation and moving expenses arises at once when the project notice is given. The lapse of the period stated in the plan does not make a validly established plan, or the acquisition of land carried out within that period, void retroactively. Moving expenses go to residents of residential buildings in the project district who must move because of it, and since the statutes fix no time for performance, the obligor is in delay from the day after a demand for payment.
Points at issue, verbatim
구 도시 및 주거환경정비법상 주거용 건축물의 세입자에 대한 주거이전비의 보상 방법 및 금액 등의 보상내용이 원칙적으로 확정되는 시점(=사업시행계획 인가고시일)
Unofficial English translation
The point in time at which the details of compensation, such as the method and amount of payment of housing relocation expenses to tenants of residential buildings under the former Act on the Improvement of Urban Areas and Residential Environments, are determined as a matter of principle (=the date of public announcement of the authorization of the implementation plan)
Disposition
Partly reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결 중 원고 1에 대한 피고 패소 부분의 추가로 지급을 명한 부분과 원고 2에 대한 피고 패소 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다. 원고들의 상고를 모두 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The part of the judgment of the court below ordering additional payment within the portion where the defendant lost as to Plaintiff 1 and the portion where the defendant lost as to Plaintiff 2 is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. All of the plaintiffs' appeals are dismissed.
Form of the test
Existing test applied Read from the decision
이러한 사실관계를 앞에서 본 법리에 비추어 살펴보면
Unofficial English translation
Examining these facts in light of the legal principle set forth above,
Factors
- 원칙적으로 확정되는 시점(=사업시행계획 인가고시일)
- 주거이전비 보상대상자의 결정 기준
- 사업시행계획서에서 정한 사업시행기간이 지난 경우, 유효하게 수립된 사업시행계획 및 그에 기초하여 사업시행기간 내에 이루어진 토지의 매수·수용을 비롯한 사업시행의 법적 효과가 소급하여 효력을 상실하여 무효로 되는지 여부(소극)
- 이행지체 책임 기산시점(=채무자가 이행청구를 받은 다음 날)
Unofficial English translation
• The point in time at which it is determined as a matter of principle (=the date of public announcement of the authorization of the implementation plan)
• The criteria for determining the persons eligible for housing relocation expenses as compensation
• Whether, where the implementation period set forth in the implementation plan has lapsed, the legally validly established implementation plan and the legal effects of the implementation of the project carried out within the implementation period on the basis thereof, including the purchase and expropriation of land, retroactively lose their effect and become void (negative)
• The point in time from which liability for delay in performance arises (=the day after the obligor receives a demand for performance)
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2017. 10. 26. 선고 2015두46673 판결 참조
Unofficial English translation
see Supreme Court Decision 2015Du46673 decided October 26, 2017
Decisions referred to
[1][3] 대법원 2010. 11. 11. 선고 2010두5332 판결(공2010하, 2274) / [1][4] 대법원 2012. 4. 26. 선고 2010두7475 판결(공2012상, 871) / [1] 대법원 2017. 10. 26. 선고 2015두46673 판결 / [2] 대법원 2016. 12. 1. 선고 2016두34905 판결(공2017상, 126) / [3] 대법원 2010. 9. 9. 선고 2009두16824 판결(공2010하, 1920)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
If a business plan approval notice lapses or is superseded for a reason other than the lapse of the period stated in it, does that affect compensation content already fixed on the earlier notice date?
The Seoul High Court's remand judgment recalculating the compensation on the 2010 notice date will show the rule applied to these figures. Any amendment to the former Urban and Residential Environment Maintenance Act, cross-referred to current Article 65(1), or to the Land Compensation Act and its Enforcement Rules, calls for a fresh reading.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 4 (form of the test).
Axis 4 (Form of the test): Primary “Existing test applied” vs Independent “Elements stated”
Neither reading states who bears the burden of proof, since both record it as not mentioned, so the difference flagged here may come from how the axis was coded rather than from the text itself.
주거이전비의 보상 방법 및 금액 등의 보상내용이 원칙적으로 확정되는 시점(=사업시행계획 인가고시일)Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Seoul High Court, in its judgment of 14 November 2018 (2017Nu75271), held that the 2010 notice lapsed on 1 June 2014, the day after the 48-month period expired, so the notice fixing the compensation content was the 2015 notice of 14 December 2015, and it recalculated the amounts on that date. It dismissed Plaintiff 2's claim for relocation expenses because the building had been unlicensed and the plaintiff had not resided in the district for one year at the public inspection of 22 August 2008, and dismissed the delay interest claims, finding no payment demand before suit.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the court below had misread the law on the lapse of a business plan approval and on the date when relocation and moving expense compensation is fixed, and that this affected the judgment. It found no error in dismissing Plaintiff 2's claim on the criteria for eligibility, nor in dismissing the delay interest claims, since interest runs from the day after a demand for payment.
Distinguishing conditions
- A tenant of an unlicensed building who had not resided in the maintenance district for one year at the date of the public inspection of the maintenance plan.
- A tenant who had not resided in the maintenance district for three months at the date of the public inspection of the maintenance plan.
- A case where the business plan grounding the compensation is void from the outset or cancelled by a final judgment.
Record verification notes
Fix the date the business plan was approved and notified for the property concerned, and check whether that notice was superseded or cancelled for reasons other than the lapse of its period. Then verify the tenant's residence at the public inspection date and whether a demand for payment was made before suit, since delay interest turns on it. Note that the decision applies the statutes before their earlier amendments.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 구 도시 및 주거환경정비법상 주거용 건축물의 세입자에 대한 주거이전비의 보상 방법 및 금액 등의 보상내용이 원칙적으로 확정되는 시점(=사업시행계획 인가고시일) / 공익사업의 시행에 따라 이주하는 주거용 건축물의 세입자에게 지급해야 하는 주거이전비 및 이사비의 지급의무가 발생하는 시점 [2] 구 도시 및 주거환경정비법에 따라 설립된 정비사업조합에 의하여 수립된 사업시행계획서에서 정한 사업시행기간이 지난 경우, 유효하게 수립된 사업시행계획 및 그에 기초하여 사업시행기간 내에 이루어진 토지의 매수·수용을 비롯한 사업시행의 법적 효과가 소급하여 효력을 상실하여 무효로 되는지 여부(소극) [3] 구 도시 및 주거환경정비법상 주거용 건축물의 세입자에 대한 주거이전비 보상대상자의 결정 기준 [4] 공익사업의 시행에 따라 이주하는 주거용 건축물의 세입자에게 지급해야 하는 주거이전비, 이사비 지급의무의 이행지체 책임 기산시점(=채무자가 이행청구를 받은 다음 날)
Unofficial English translation
[1] The point in time at which the details of compensation, such as the method and amount of payment of housing relocation expenses to tenants of residential buildings under the former Act on the Improvement of Urban Areas and Residential Environments, are determined as a matter of principle (=the date of public announcement of the authorization of the implementation plan) / The point in time at which the obligation to pay housing relocation expenses and moving expenses to tenants of residential buildings who are displaced in connection with the implementation of a public project arises [2] Whether, where the implementation period set forth in an implementation plan established by a maintenance project association established under the former Act on the Improvement of Urban Areas and Residential Environments has lapsed, the legally validly established implementation plan and the legal effects of the implementation of the project carried out within the implementation period on the basis thereof, including the purchase and expropriation of land, retroactively lose their effect and become void (negative) [3] The criteria for determining the persons eligible for housing relocation expenses as compensation to tenants of residential buildings under the former Act on the Improvement of Urban Areas and Residential Environments [4] The point in time from which liability for delay in performance of the obligation to pay housing relocation expenses and moving expenses to tenants of residential buildings who are displaced in connection with the implementation of a public project arises (=the day after the obligor receives a demand for performance)
Summary of the holding
The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Order
원심판결 중 원고 1에 대한 피고 패소 부분의 추가로 지급을 명한 부분과 원고 2에 대한 피고 패소 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다. 원고들의 상고를 모두 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The part of the judgment of the court below ordering additional payment within the portion where the defendant lost as to Plaintiff 1 and the portion where the defendant lost as to Plaintiff 2 is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. All of the plaintiffs' appeals are dismissed.
Provisions referred to
[1] 구 도시 및 주거환경정비법(2017. 2. 8. 법률 제14567호로 전부 개정되기 전의 것) 제40조 제1항(현행 제65조 제1항 참조), 구 공익사업을 위한 토지 등의 취득 및 보상에 관한 법률(2011. 8. 4. 법률 제11017호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제78조 제5항, 제9항, 구 공익사업을 위한 토지 등의 취득 및 보상에 관한 법률 시행규칙(2012. 1. 2. 국토해양부령 제427호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제54조 제2항, 제55조 제2항 [2] 구 도시 및 주거환경정비법(2017. 2. 8. 법률 제14567호로 전부 개정되기 전의 것) 제28조(현행 제50조 참조), 제38조(현행 제63조 참조), 제40조 제1항(현행 제65조 제1항 참조) [3] 구 도시 및 주거환경정비법(2017. 2. 8. 법률 제14567호로 전부 개정되기 전의 것) 제40조 제1항(현행 제65조 제1항 참조), 구 공익사업을 위한 토지 등의 취득 및 보상에 관한 법률(2011. 8. 4. 법률 제11017호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제78조 제5항, 제9항, 구 공익사업을 위한 토지 등의 취득 및 보상에 관한 법률 시행규칙(2012. 1. 2. 국토해양부령 제427호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제54조 제2항, 제55조 제2항 [4] 구 도시 및 주거환경정비법(2017. 2. 8. 법률 제14567호로 전부 개정되기 전의 것) 제40조 제1항(현행 제65조 제1항 참조), 구 공익사업을 위한 토지 등의 취득 및 보상에 관한 법률(2011. 8. 4. 법률 제11017호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제78조 제5항, 제9항, 구 공익사업을 위한 토지 등의 취득 및 보상에 관한 법률 시행규칙(2012. 1. 2. 국토해양부령 제427호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제54조 제2항, 제55조 제2항
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger