Busan District Captain;

Representative Director △△△△

2. AnO0 agricultural partnership;

Busan District Captain;

Representative Director △△△△

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 5

Attorney AAA

Representative City Mayor Dognam

[Defendant-Appellant] Defendant 1 and 3 others

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The defendant paid 619,495,256 won to the plaintiff ○○○○ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "the plaintiff ○○○○○") and 322,278,56 won among them at the rate of 5% per annum from May 23, 2003 to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment, and 297,216,70 won per annum from the day following the day of this decision to the day of full payment to the day of full payment, and 20% per annum from the day of this decision to the day of full payment to the day of full payment to the day of 809,010,644 won and 603,360,444 won per annum from the day following the day of this case to the day of full payment to 205% per annum of the plaintiff ○○○○ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "the plaintiff ○○○○○").

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The defendant will implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed in accordance with No. 74087 on October 7, 1999 with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 74086 on October 7, 1999 with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2 list with respect to the plaintiff ○○○○○○○.

The following facts are either disputed between the parties, or acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of pleadings in each of the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 2, 5-1, 6-2, 7-1, 2, 8-1, 2, 9-2, 12, and 13-1, 2, A22, 23, 24-1, 1-2, 2, 3, 4, 5-1, 6-1, 2, and 7-2.

A. The Plaintiffs owned the land listed in attached Form 1 and the land listed in attached Form 2 (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”), respectively, as the Korea dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated to the Do governor and

B. On November 7, 1998, the Mayor of Busan Metropolitan City made a decision and a cadastral approval announcement of urban planning facilities for "the construction of the Asian Games Stak Stak Stak Stak Stak Stakak Stakak Stakak Stakak Stakak Stakak Stakak Stakakak Stakakak Stakakak Stakakak-gu, Busan Metropolitan City, the captain of Busan Metropolitan City announced the implementation plan on December 23, 199 on January 7, 199

C. On April 30, 1999, the head of Busan Metropolitan City did not reach an agreement on the purchase of land between the plaintiffs, who are the owners of the land to be incorporated into the land for the above urban planning project, and the Central Land Expropriation Committee again requested the Land Expropriation Committee to adjudicate on April 30, 199. On August 24, 199, the Central Land Expropriation Committee decided to expropriate the compensation for twenty parcels of land, including the instant land, at KRW 1,88,157,580 ( KRW 1,852,32,32,00 + KRW 35,835,580 + KRW 35,580 + KRW 1,796,638,680 for the land of the Plaintiff ○○ Farming Cooperative as 18 parcels of land (hereinafter referred to as “land compensation 1,751,104,500 + KRW 45,534,180,95”).

D. On September 15, 1999, the Plaintiffs filed an objection with the Central Land Expropriation Committee on the instant ruling on expropriation on the ground that the said Do plan included the land scheduled for new construction of the chip group, and the site selection was erroneous as well as the amount of compensation was low. However, the Central Land Expropriation Committee rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiffs’ objection on February 22, 200.

E. Meanwhile, upon the refusal of the plaintiffs to receive compensation, the defendant deposited the compensation amount which was determined by the expropriation ruling on October 4, 1999 with the Busan District Court 2610, 2611, the Busan District Court 2611, 199, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant, each of which caused acceptance on October 5, 1999, under the Busan District Court 2610, 2611, the Busan District Court 74086, 74087, which was received on October 7, 199.

2. The plaintiffs' assertion and judgment

A. The assertion

(1) On February 9, 200, the Defendant agreed to make a decision to revise the urban planning and to exclude the land of this case from the project site by moving the location of the plaintiffs and stadium to North Korea, and to make this public announcement. This agreement includes the purport that the expropriation procedure for the land of this case becomes effective as a source and implement the registration of cancellation of the transfer of ownership. Even though it is not so, if at least the Defendant took the above measure immediately at least immediately, the decision procedure can be revoked or invalidated. However, the Plaintiffs’ objection at the wind to implement the above procedure on July 9, 2001, after the date of the above agreement, was dismissed. In addition, according to Article 18(1) of the former Land Expropriation Act, the project approval operator did not immediately notify the landowner of the expropriation procedure, despite being informed of the fact that the landowner did not take such measures.

(2) Ultimately, the plaintiffs have no choice but to recover the ownership due to repurchase due to the failure or tort as above by the defendant's side, or due to the cancellation of the defendant's ownership transfer registration. Accordingly, the plaintiffs are liable to compensate for the corporate tax and resident tax arising from capital gains from the expropriation of the land of this case (○○○○○○○○ 322,278,556 won, 603,360,444 won, and damages (○○○○○○○○○○ 322,278,56 won, 603,360,444 won) and damages (i.e., damages OO297,216,700 won (=1,715,772,700 won -1,418,56,500 won), ○○○○ agricultural cooperative, 205,1605,2057,20157,507 won).

(b) Fact of recognition;

In addition to the evidence evidence No. 4-1, 2, A1, 14, A17-1, 2, A18-1, 2, A19-2, A20, A21-1, A2, A22, 23, 24, A38-2 through 7, A39-1, 40-1, 2, A41, A41, 44, B-8 through 12, 1-3-1, 2, B-14, 1-1, 14, 15-1, 2, 16-1, 2, 18-2, 18-1, 2, 12-1, 19-2, 21, 25-21, 21-2, 25-2, 21-2, 21-2, 25-2, 3-2, 21-2, 25-2, 3-1 of the evidence, respectively.

(1) Even after the Defendant acquired ownership in accordance with the instant acceptance ruling, the Plaintiffs continuously demanded the Defendant to change the business site on the ground that the instant land was a religious site, and thereby interfered with the construction of the Gyeonggi-do Construction Project.

(2) While the plaintiffs and the defendant continued consultation for the resolution of these incidents, they submitted a letter of intent to move approximately 250 meters from the plaintiffs' side to North Korea about February 2000, and they sent to the plaintiffs a reply to the proposal related to the construction of the "Field" stadium containing the purport that the defendant would accept it on March 2, 2000.

(3) On April 200, the head of Busan Metropolitan City approved and publicly notified the modification of the Do planning project implementation plan with the purport of increasing the stadium size from 61,36 m to 125,955m and moving the location from the 61,36 m to the 125,95m, and moving the location to the north (Seoul-gun, Busan-gun, Samsung-gun) instead of the initial plan.

(4) On October 19, 200, the head of Busan Metropolitan City filed an application for adjudication of expropriation with the Central Land Expropriation Committee, which did not reach an agreement on purchase with the plaintiffs, the owners of the land owned by the plaintiff ○○○○○○○○, such as the 6 parcels of land owned by the plaintiff 1,369m East-gu, Busan Metropolitan City, the land added as the urban planning project site, such as the 1,369m square meters, and the 18-1 address address 2,656m square meters, and the 5 parcels of land owned by the plaintiff ○○○○○ Farming Cooperative, such as the 1,369m square meters of the Dong-gu, Busan Metropolitan City, the land, which was the land incorporated as the urban planning project site. Accordingly, on December 7, 2000, the defendant deposited each of the compensation money with the Busan District Court 3904, 3905.

(5) According to the exclusion of the instant land from the site of an urban planning project, the captain head of a Gun prepared around May 22, 2001 the alteration of urban planning facilities (within the boundary of the city planning facilities) with the content of rereductioning the instant land from 125,95 square meters to 59,763 square meters in the field of a stadium, and prepared and announced a topographical map on July 9, 2001, after the public inspection period from May 23, 2001 to June 5, 2001.

(6) From February 2, 2002, from March 28, 2002, Plaintiff ○○○○ issued several letters to the Defendant to the effect that “the Plaintiff imposed corporate tax and resident tax, etc. on the land of this case due to the expropriation of the land of this case, so that the expropriation of the land of this case becomes null and void, and thus the ownership is changed to its original state,” and the Defendant sent to the Plaintiffs a letter of public notice that the registration of cancellation due to the invalidation of the land of this case is not subject to the registration of cancellation due to the invalidation of the land of this case, and finally, on February 13, 2006, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiffs a notice that it would be subject to the cancellation of the registration of transfer of ownership as of February 13, 2006.

(7) On February 23, 2007, the plaintiffs had expressed their intention to refund the land of this case to the defendant on February 23, 2007, and on October 11, 2007, the amount corresponding to the land of this case out of the land expropriation compensation at the time of the decision to expropriate the land of this case, namely, the original High ○○○○○○ deposit of KRW 1,418,56,500, and KRW 1,357,141,000 for the plaintiff ○○○○ Farming Cooperative, after consultation process, and around December 207, 2007, the plaintiffs and the defendant agreed to set the purchase price of the land of this case to KRW 1,715,772,700 for the plaintiff ○○○○○○○○○○, and the final purchase price of the plaintiff ○○○○ Cooperative as KRW 1,56,720,91,700 for repurchase money.

(c) Related statutes;

The former Land Expropriation Act (amended by Act No. 6656 of Feb. 4, 2002)

Article 18 (Discontinuance and Alteration of Business) (1) Public project operators shall make a public announcement of project approval under Article 16 (1).

Land shall be expropriated or used due to the discontinuation or alteration of the whole or part of the project after it has been closed or altered.

When it is no longer necessary, a report shall be made without delay to the Mayor/Do Governor having jurisdiction over the land.

and persons concerned shall be notified.

Article 71 (Right of Repurchase) (1) Discontinuation of the project within 10 years from the date of acquisition by agreement or the date of expropriation after project approval.

If the whole or part of the expropriated land becomes unnecessary due to a change or any other cause, such consultation.

A landowner or his/her general successor at the time of acquisition or expropriation (hereinafter referred to as "re-purchase right holder") shall do so.

land in question and within 10 years from the date of acquisition or expropriation of such land within 1 year from the time when it has become unnecessary; and

An amount equivalent to the compensation paid for rights other than ownership of land to public project operators;

such land may be redeemed immediately.

(2) The provisions of paragraph (1) shall be expropriated even after five years have elapsed since the date of acquisition through consultation or expropriation after project approval.

Where all land is not used for business, this shall apply mutatis mutandis.

Article 72 (Extinguishment of Right of Repurchase) (1) Any land has been created for which the land to be repurchased is to be repurchased under Article 71 (1) and (2).

public project operators shall notify the repurchase right holder without delay: Provided, That if public project operators were without any negligence,

When the repurchase right holder is unknown, it shall be publicly announced under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree.

D. Determination

(1) As to the non-performance of the agreement

According to the above facts, the defendant accepted the plaintiffs' stadium construction interference and repeated civil petition, and agreed to revise the urban planning to exclude the land of this case from the site for urban planning projects, and further, it cannot be deemed that the defendant agreed to recover the plaintiffs' ownership by way of cancelling the registration of transfer of ownership based on expropriation by the original invalidation of the procedure for expropriation of the land of this case, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant agreed to the purport as otherwise alleged by the plaintiff.

On the other hand, since such an agreement was made only on March 2, 200, it was concluded that the objection against the plaintiffs' acceptance ruling was made on February 22, 2000, and since it had been rejected on February 22, 200, there was no possibility for the defendant to revoke the acceptance ruling of this case by accepting the plaintiffs' assertion at least at the stage of this ruling at least at the time of raising an objection, and therefore, even if the defendant implemented somewhat late the procedure for modifying the urban planning containing the contents of excluding the land in the site of urban planning, it cannot be deemed that the defendant failed to properly implement the agreement, or that the damage was caused to the plaintiffs.

(2) Whether liability for damages was established due to breach of duty of notice

First, Article 18 of the former Land Expropriation Act provides for the procedure to be taken when it becomes unnecessary to expropriate or use the land due to the discontinuation or alteration of the whole or part of the project after the approval of the project. However, Articles 71(1) and 72(1) of the former Land Expropriation Act provide that a public project operator (project operator) shall notify the landowner at the time of expropriation of the fact without delay when it becomes unnecessary to expropriate or use the land due to the discontinuation or alteration, etc. of the whole or part of the project within 10 years from the date of expropriation. As seen earlier, the captain of the city planning facility and the preparation and announcement of the topographical map on July 9, 201, which exclude part of the land of this case from the site of urban planning project. Thus, the head of Busan Metropolitan City, a project operator, has a duty to notify the plaintiffs without delay, unless there are any other special circumstances. Nevertheless, the head of Busan Metropolitan City, a project operator, should notify the plaintiffs of the fact that he/she made the aforementioned notification only on February 13, 2006.

However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence, ① Article 72(1) of the former Land Use Act provides that a public project operator shall immediately notify the original owner of the land when there was any land to be repurchased. The purport of this provision is to ensure the effectiveness of exercising the right of repurchase, which is naturally recognized by law, by requiring the original owner to first notify whether to repurchase the land, in light of the principle of at least public burden and the principle of equity to protect the original owner who lost ownership, if there is land, which is no need for public interest (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da45864, Nov. 4, 200). It is difficult to view that the change of the urban planning that was announced as of July 9, 201 by the Plaintiffs to be excluded from the land of this case by the Defendant’s request, and thus, the Plaintiffs would not have been aware of the aforementioned circumstances from the beginning of the period of expropriation of the land of this case, and thus, it is difficult to deem the Plaintiffs to exercise the right of repurchase without delay.

(3) The plaintiffs' assertion does not seem to have any opinion or reason.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit (the plaintiff's claim for cancellation of registration of ownership transfer of the land of this case was withdrawn in exchange for the claim made in the trial and the judgment of the court of first instance was invalidated). It is so decided as per Disposition.

Seodaemun-gu’s words

Dud iron iron

After the approval of the project (in this case, the implementation plan) or the urban planning decision to be its mother is revoked or modified after the fact.

There is no way for Do project operators (project operators) to retroactively invalidate the effect of expropriation.

Indication of Real Estate (Plaintiff ○○○○ Incorporated Company)

1. 28 square meters in the Dong-ri, Eup, Busan-gun;

2. The area of 1,842 square meters in the Dong-ri, Dong-ri, Eup, Busan-gun;

3. The registry of the Eup/Myeon/Eup/Myeon in Busan, the registry of which is 162 meters;

4. The registry of the Eup/Myeon/Eup/Myeon in Busan, the registry of which is about 102 meters;

5. 1,726 square meters in the Dong-ri, Eup, Busan-gun;

6. The registry of the Eup in Busan-gun but 268 meters prior to the 39th registry of the Eup.

7. The plane captain in Busan-gun/Eup 44-6 2,131 square meters;

8. The plane captain in Busan-gun/Eup/Myeon-ri 44-7 2 meters.

9. The plane captain in Busan-gun/Eup/Myeon-ri 45-3 2,413 meters;

10. The registry of the Eup/Myeon in Busan-gun and the registry of the Eup/Myeon in Busan-gun of 576 meters;

11. The captain of the Busan-gun/Eup/Myeon-ri 49-6 3,357 meters;

12. The last day of 8,682 forest land in the Dong-ri, Dong-ri, Eup-Myeon-ri, Busan-gun; and

(Attached Form 2)

Indication of Real Estate (Plaintiff ○○ Agricultural Partnership)

1. The plane captain in Busan-gun/Eup/Myeon-1 563 meters;

2. The plane captain in Busan-gun/Eup/Myeon-ri 27 819 meters;

3. The registry of the Eup/Myeon in Busan-gun: 1,682m of the answer 29-1m of the Eup/Myeon;

4. The answer of 29-4 697m of the Dong-ri, Eup, Busan-gun;

5. The plane captain in Busan-gun/Eup 33-1 3,329 square meters;

6. The answer 34 1,322 m of the Dong-ri, Eup, Busan-gun;

7. The registry of the Eup/Myeon/Eup/Myeon in Busan, the registry of which is about 456 meters;

8. The registry of the Eup in Busan-gun and the registry of the Eup/Myeon in Busan-gun of 1,495 meters;

9. The registry of the Eup/Myeon in Busan-gun but the registry of the Eup/Myeon in Busan-gun of 1,984m;

10. The registry of the Eup/Myeon in Busan-gun but the registry of the Eup/Myeon 41-1 Si 498 meters;

11. The plane captain in Busan-gun/Eup/Myeon-ri 42-1 square meter 1,221 square meter;

12. The registry of the Eup/Myeon in Busan-gun but the registry of the Eup/Myeon in Busan-gun of 2,185 meters;

13. The captain of Busan-gun/Eup/Myeon-ri 50-11 520 meters.

14. The plane captain in Busan-gun/Eup 55-1 106 square meters;

15. The 55-2 Si/Eup/Myeon/Dong-ri 55-2 2m. end.