공익사업에서 점유이전과 생활보상

There is no difference between general public works projects and improvement projects under the Act on the improvement of urban areas and residential environments(Urban improvement Act) in that an expropriation adjudication is made, but in the latter case, not all land owners are subject to expropriation, but rather only a few are subject to expropriation. In the case where an expropriation adjudication is made through a long procedure for members who oppose the redevelopment project, the project implementer may request extradition on the basis of the effect of the expropriation adjudication. It should be interpreted that the compensation has been completed as an expropriation adjudication has been made for union members those who opposing the project. On the other hand, tenants of improvement projects are those who lose the right to use profits earlier than other public works projects due to the suspension of use. It should be interpreted that the Livelihood compensation prescribed by the Act in acquisition of and compensation for land etc. for public works projects(Land Compensation Act), such as housing transfer expenses, in the extradition claim litigation against them is in the relationship of prior or concurrent Performance. In particular, since the project implementer’s extradition claim litigation against them is an expropriation lawsuit, it must be interpreted so that a fair compensation (Article 23, Paragraph 3 of the Constitution) is made within the procedure. If the Livelihood compensation is not paid to the tenant, the compensation cannot be considered complete. The purpose of stipulating administrative vicarious execution under the Land Compensation Act takes into account the unique public law situation in which the expropriation and compensation stipulated by the Land Compensation Act are enforced. However, the Supreme Court excluded the power of eviction from the power of execution under the Land Compensation Law, and as a result separated the issue of compensation under the Land Compensation Law from the civil lawsuit. This ruling contributed to some extent in protecting the human rights of owners and tenants, but on the other hand, as the extradition claim litigation was identified as a simple civil lawsuit, it was insulated from the compensation system under the Land Compensation Act. In the long term, all Livelihood compensation under the Land Compensation Act must be incorporated into the compensation object of the expropriation adjudication, and an expropriation adjudication including this must be made. As in the present, at least the practice of the civil lawsuit should be changed in the form of a party lawsuit under public law. In the Party lawsuit, it is recognized that the obligation to transfer possession under the Land Compensation Act or the suspension of use under the Urban Improvement Act is recognized as a public law regulation, and whether it is linked to legitimate compensation should be carefully examined.