According to the judgment of the court below, when the defendant started a land substitution plan with approval of a land substitution plan for February 5, 1963 and did not designate a land substitution plan for the land in this case and did not pay liquidation money for the land in December 17, 1968 when a land substitution plan was finalized and announced publicly, the court below explained that the defendant is an illegal act in which the plaintiff is liable to compensate for losses, and that the scope of damages caused by the illegal act in this case is an amount equivalent to the liquidation money anticipated when the plaintiff is to pay liquidation money for the land in this case. Thus, according to the provisions of the Land substitution and Rearrangement Project Act, the liquidation money is determined as an amount equivalent to the liquidation money authorized in the land substitution plan, and this is the amount fixed on the day following the date when the land substitution plan was announced publicly, which is the date when the defendant obtained approval from the Minister of Construction and Transportation for the land in this case, and there is no evidence about the fact that the liquidation money was determined by the land substitution plan at the time of the land substitution plan for each right.

The above measure of the court below is justified, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the settlement money in the lawsuit, the criteria for calculating settlement money, and the time of the disposition of replotting.

Although there are Supreme Court Decisions (Supreme Court Decision 77Da2050 delivered on December 27, 197) that held that the settlement money equivalent to the settlement money at the time of a replotting disposition should be based on the standard as seen above, as seen in the above, the lower court cannot be erroneous in the lower court’s judgment in this case where it appears that the aforementioned determination was made by driving away from the legal judgment of the judgment on remanding the instant case.

In addition, the court below erred by holding that the "price of a cover for part of the land of the Myeon, Dong, which was organized at the time of the authorization for the execution of the compartmentalization and rearrangement project of the Heung-dong, 1967," which was not invoked by the plaintiff, shall be considered as the data for calculating the amount equivalent to the settlement money of this case. However, this is clearly related to the land of the Myeon, Dong, Dong, such as the location of the land of this case, and this data is clearly related to the land of the Myeon, such as the location of the land of this case, and as it is obvious that the plaintiff was invoked as part of

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)