In light of the legal principles as to the Farmland Reform Act, the court below did not err in determining that the land category of this case was miscellaneous but was actually discussed at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, and thus, the non-party did not err in making a wrong judgment and making a wrong judgment, even if it was reviewed by comparing the records that the non-party recognized the fact that the land was legitimately distributed and completed the repayment. The non-party's statement that the non-party's ownership transfer registration was based on the registration of the transfer of ownership due to the completion of the repayment made in the future was presumed to be the co-owned land under the name of the plaintiff ○○○ (the plaintiff 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5's decedent) and the plaintiff △△△△△△, and there was no error in finding that the land category of this case was the fact that the land was actually used as a site for a long time since 30 years ago, in calculating the damages of the plaintiffs, it cannot be seen that it was a clerical error in light of the above sentence.

The grounds of appeal No. 3 are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, with the approval of the Minister of Construction and Transportation on November 29, 1968, the court below determined that the defendant completed the project of this case without designating the substitute land on the ground that the land category is a road and paid a considerable liquidation money on March 12, 1975 at the same time for the same district without designating the substitute land on the ground that the land category was a road, and that the land category of this case was completed without paying a reasonable settlement money on the ground that the land category was a road, and that the defendant completed the project without paying a reasonable settlement money on the land as above, it is illegal that the defendant would cause the plaintiffs to lose the ownership of this case on the following day of the public notice of the disposition of replotting. Accordingly, the court below is liable to compensate the plaintiffs for damages equivalent to the liquidation money on this case, and the plaintiffs' damages to this case shall be calculated at the average rate of 350 percent of liquidation money per land at the time of the land substitution plan, on the premise that the liquidation money at the time of the above land substitution plan is calculated.

However, as decided by the court below, even if the land category of this case is a road, if the plaintiffs, the owner of this case, provide the land free of charge, and if the project implementer loses the ownership through a final public announcement of replotting disposition without designating a substitute lot for such land and without paying a considerable liquidation money, the project implementer shall not exceed the scope of liquidation amount anticipated to be paid if the land is responsible for illegal execution of the land readjustment project within the scope and the liquidation amount is paid to the land (see Supreme Court Decision 74Da1548, Apr. 22, 1975). Thus, the court below shall not exceed the amount equivalent to liquidation amount to be determined in the replotting plan to take a replotting disposition for the land within the project implementation zone including this case's land in this case's land in this case's land ownership as above, but it is difficult for the court below to calculate the liquidation amount based on the amount equivalent to the liquidation amount as of March 13, 1975, which is the day following the public announcement of replotting disposition lost the ownership of this case's land.

Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, we reverse the original judgment without further proceeding. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)