[손해배상(기)][공1998.12.1.(71),2739]
[1] In case where the land readjustment project executor designates a land secured for the recompense of development outlay and sells it to a third party, the time when the purchaser acquires the right to use and ownership
[2] The time when double selling of land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay is impossible
[1] In case where a land rearrangement project executor has designated a land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay before a land rearrangement disposition is taken under Articles 54, 57 (4), and 62 (6) of the Land Rearrangement and Rearrangement Projects Act and disposes of it to a third party, if the purchaser first satisfies any of the requirements in the land delivery or the ledger of the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay, the purchaser may oppose the other double assignees, as well as the right to use and benefit from the land in question has been acquired by acquiring a similar right to use and benefit from the land in question
[2] In case of double selling land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay, the seller’s obligation to the other buyer is impossible at the time when the seller changed the name of the owner in the ledger of land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay for development outlay for development
[1] Articles 54, 57(4), and 62(6) of the Land Readjustment Projects Act / [2] Article 390 of the Civil Act, Articles 54, 57(4), and 62(6) of the Land Readjustment Projects Act
[1] Supreme Court Decision 93Da57964 delivered on March 10, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 1570), Supreme Court Decision 94Da31280 delivered on February 23, 1996 (Gong1996Sang, 1033) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 94Da53532 delivered on February 23, 1996 (Gong196Sang, 1042)
[Judgment of the court below]
Defendant (Attorney Cho Jong-soo et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)
Busan High Court Decision 96Na12696 delivered on July 3, 1998
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
In a case where a land developer has designated a land secured by the recompense for development outlay before a land substitution disposition under Articles 54, 57(4), and 62(6) of the Land Readjustment Act and disposed of it to a third party, if the purchaser first satisfies any of the requirements in the register of land delivery or the land secured by the recompense for development outlay, the purchaser may set up against other double assignees the acquisition of the right, as well as in a case where the purchaser has acquired a right to use and benefit from the relevant land similar to a real right, but has acquired the ownership under the same Act on the following day of the public notice of a land substitution disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Da57964, Mar. 10, 195; 94Da31280, Feb. 23, 1996). Therefore, in a case where the seller has sold the land secured by the recompense for development outlay for development outlay for development outlay for development outlay for the next time, the seller becomes unable to perform its obligation as a seller to the other purchaser at the time of the land (see Supreme Court Decision 23535Da.
In accordance with the above legal principles, it is proper that the court below judged that the name of the owner on the register of land recompense authorities of the non-party 1 Specialized Zone No. 1 Special Metropolitan City Land Partition Association has been changed from the defendant to the non-party 1, around July 1986, the defendant's obligation to the plaintiff as the seller of the land allotted by the recompense for development outlay of this case was impossible. There is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the function of the register of land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay and the rights acquired by the right holder on the register
Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and the costs of appeal shall be assessed against the plaintiff who is the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Cho Cho-Un (Presiding Justice)