According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, as to May 3, 1963, the plaintiff 1 and the non-party were deceased on November 10, 197 and the plaintiff 4, 5, and 6, who were co-owned by the plaintiff 1 and the non-party, were not designated as a substitute land for the reason that the above land was actually used as a road from the previous date when implementing the land readjustment project after obtaining authorization from the Minister of Construction and Transportation with respect to the Busan Si-Eup's land area including 145 square meters of road in Busan, Busan, which was owned by the plaintiff 1 and the non-party, and the plaintiff 1 and the non-party et al. were not designated as a substitute land for the reason that the above land was not actually used as a road from the previous date, and they did not pay a considerable amount of liquidation money to the plaintiff 1 and the non-party 1 to whom the above non-party 1 and the non-party 3 had a duty to pay damages to the above land after the completion of the land substitution disposition.

Article 766 of the Civil Code provides that a claim for damages caused by a tort shall be extinguished by prescription if it is not exercised within three years from the date the injured party or his/her legal representative becomes aware of the damage and of the identity of the perpetrator. The damage refers to the fact of the damage caused by an illegal act, and the date the injured party or his/her legal representative becomes aware of the damage and the date the injured person becomes aware of the damage and the identity of the injured person is the actual and specific perception of the damage. Thus, the date when the injured party or his/her legal representative becomes aware of the damage is not sufficient to know that the damage occurred, but it refers to the time when the injured party becomes aware of the damage caused by the tort. In addition, the time when the injured party becomes aware of the subjective attitude of the damage, namely, the time when the injured party

However, in the case of this case, when the land owner is able to exercise any right against the project implementer by executing a land readjustment project through an illegal procedure as seen above, the legal principle of compensation for losses cannot be established in the case where the land owner can exercise any right against the project implementer. However, in the case of this case, it is obvious in the record that the project implementer has avoided the view that the general project implementer is liable for damages in accordance with the legal principles of tort and has changed the previous opinion. Thus, unless there are any special circumstances, the plaintiffs can only recognize the illegality of the above land substitution disposition after the change in the above precedents. (See Supreme Court Decision 76Da2984 delivered on February 22, 197, Supreme Court Decision 76Da549 delivered on March 22, 197, Supreme Court Decision 76Da546Da256 delivered on March 22, 197).

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that different opinion above is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to the starting point of the extinctive prescription under Article 766 of the Civil Code and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations. Thus, it is reasonable to discuss the appeal on the ground of this point, and the judgment of the court below cannot escape from reversal in this point without making a decision on other points.

Therefore, the original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court which is the original judgment. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Young-chul (Presiding Justice)