Landowner sues for “cancellation of maintenance area acceptance”… Court wins for plaintiff over concerns over property rights restrictions

The court ruled that if there is a risk that the property rights of the owner of the land being expropriated may be infringed because specific profit and loss measurements were not made when promoting the maintenance project, the decision to expropriate should be canceled.

According to the legal community on the 23rd, the Busan District Court recently ruled in favor of the plaintiff in a lawsuit filed by landowner A against Busan City to partially cancel the designation of maintenance areas, etc.

The city is pursuing an apartment redevelopment project in 2023 and has designated approximately 38,000 m2 of land as a maintenance area. Mr. A's land was included here, and Mr. A requested that his land be excluded from the maintenance area due to the reconstruction of a commercial building. However, the city of Busan refused on the grounds that accepting Mr. A's request would reduce the public interest of the development, and Mr. A filed a lawsuit.

Mr. A argued that his land was only a small part of the total redevelopment area, so even if it was excluded, it would not affect the progress of the redevelopment project. He also emphasized that the adjacent land had been excluded from the maintenance area for the same reason, and that including only his own land violated the principle of equality. In addition, he added that when land is included in a maintenance zone, its use changes from a general commercial area to an exclusive residential area, which reduces its value.

The city refuted that if Mr. A's land is excluded, there is a risk of residual land being created and the road entering the maintenance area will disappear. At the same time, he explained that if Mr. A's land is excluded, equity issues with other landowners incorporated into the maintenance area may arise.

The court ruled in Mr. A’s favor. When looking at the land map, it was determined that if the land was included in the maintenance area, adjacent lands would remain as remnants, and since there was already other land corresponding to the road, it was unclear whether Mr. A's land was really necessary. At the same time, it is not clear what contribution to the public interest will be made if Mr. A's land is included in the maintenance area, but it is believed that Mr. A will face serious restrictions in exercising his property rights.

Attorney Kim Dae-su of Daeryun Law Firm, who represented Mr. A, said, “When making a plan, the administrative body must fairly compare and judge the interests of the people involved. If land is included, the damage suffered by Mr. A is greater than the benefit, so it appears that the court judged the city’s decision to lack legitimacy.”

Reporter Jeong Cheol-wook

[View full article]
Landowner sues for “cancellation of maintenance zone expropriation”… Court wins for plaintiff over concerns over property rights restrictions (link)