2. Revocation of the part of the original judgment against the defendant;

3. Each claim of the plaintiff et al. is dismissed.

4. The defendant, the plaintiff 1, the plaintiff 268,962 won, the plaintiff 2, 3, 4, and 5 paid 179,308 won each, and the plaintiff 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 paid 44,827 won each, and the annual rate of 5% from April 9, 1971 to the full payment, respectively, and the plaintiff 1 paid 854,790 won each, the amount of 854,790 won, the amount of 2,3,4, and 560 won each, and the amount of 569,860 won each, the amount of 6,7,8,88,9, 10, 11, and 12 shall be 142,465 won each, and the annual rate of 5% each, from March 30, 197.

5. All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff, etc.

The judgment that the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and the declaration of provisional execution are sought.

2. The defendant is entitled to a judgment and a provisional execution as stated in paragraph (4) of this Article.

2. The defendant is entitled to a declaration of provisional execution and a judgment of provisional execution as stated in paragraphs (2), (3), (4), and (5) of the main text.

The defendant asserts that since the plaintiff et al.'s main claim is a claim for damages caused by a tort committed by the public official in the course of performing his duties, the plaintiff et al.'s main claim without following the decision of the compensation deliberation committee as stipulated in Article 9 of the State Compensation Act can not be brought a lawsuit, the plaintiff et al.'s main claim without following such procedure is defective

However, as seen below, the claim for damages arising from the defendant's illegal act has already occurred at the time of the enforcement of the State Compensation Act, and the cause of such damages continues to exist after the enforcement of the State Compensation Act, and thus, in such a case, it is not necessary to apply for the payment of damages to the Compensation Council or to make a decision thereon. Therefore, the above claim for damages is groundless.

2. Judgment on the claim of the plaintiff et al.

The defendant, as part of the land readjustment project, was 10 to 63 of Incheon City on December 28, 1959. As part of the previous land substitution project, the non-party 1 (the deceased et al.) owned by the deceased et al. and the non-party 1 (the deceased et al. al. 10, 1975) owned by the deceased non-party 1 and the non-party 594 of Incheon City on June 10, 197. The above land substitution land was disposed of by the non-party 1 and the non-party 114-108 of the non-party 1 and the non-party 6 of the non-party 2 of the non-party 1 and the non-party 16-10 of the non-party 1 and the non-party 16-party 2 of the non-party 1 and the non-party 16-party 2 of the previous land substitution land were not notified of the cancellation of the above land substitution land substitution land.

The plaintiff et al. asserted that the defendant is responsible for compensating for damages (the difference between the rent amount of the previous land and the rent amount of the land designated as the replotting) since the plaintiff et al. received an illegal replotting disposition from two times as above (1959. 28 and January 12, 1963) and excluded the use of and profit from the previous land of the deceased without any authority, and this damages occurred until April 13, 1970. Thus, the defendant's assertion that the defendant is responsible for compensating for the damages (the difference between the rent amount of the previous land and the land rent amount of the land designated as the replotting). Thus, even if the implementer determines the replotting in the land readjustment project and the land is excluded, the excess or excess is settled in cash, and the previous land owners who are located in the land at the same time cannot be deemed to be the object of the land substitution disposition and to be the object of the previous land substitution disposition, and as such, it cannot be viewed that the previous land owners were not entitled to any compensation or profit-making damages due to the previous land substitution.

Therefore, the plaintiff et al.'s claim against the defendant is without merit, and thus, it is reasonable to dismiss it. Accordingly, the part against the defendant in the original judgment is revoked and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. Judgment on the return of provisional execution by the defendant and the claim for damages

In full view of the evidence No. 8-1 (written resolution of disbursement), evidence No. 8-2 (Receipt), evidence No. 8-3 (written resolution of cash seizure), evidence No. 9-1 (written resolution of payment), evidence No. 9-2 (written resolution of payment), evidence No. 9-3 (written resolution of payment prohibition), evidence No. 9-4 (written notification of payment prohibition), evidence No. 10 (written notification of payment attachment), evidence No. 11-1 to 10 (written evidence No. 10), evidence No. 11-4 (written notification of payment), evidence No. 2 of the deceased’s death from April 9, 1971 to part of the deceased’s winning judgment, evidence No. 14 of the judgment of the court below that the deceased’s provisional execution should be reversed, evidence No. 10, 300,000, and the deceased’s remaining heir or deceased’s heir No. 14, 1971 and the deceased’s remaining co-inheritors’s remaining judgment No. 14, 197.

However, it is clear by the records that the judgment of the court prior to the above remand was reversed by the judgment of the Supreme Court, and as seen above, the original judgment should be revoked by the original judgment and thus the claim of the plaintiff et al. should be dismissed. As such, the deceased would return the above provisional execution and compensate for damages arising from the above provisional execution. As such, the deceased would have died, and thus, the plaintiff et al. jointly inherited the above obligation. Thus, if it is divided into shares of the plaintiff et al. according to each share of inheritance of the plaintiff et al., with respect to the obligation to return the amount of KRW 1,300,00 which was enforced by the judgment of the court below, KRW 268,962, KRW 2,3,4,50, KRW 179, KRW 6,88, KRW 78, KRW 98, KRW 10, KRW 10, KRW 10, KRW 1148, KRW 416, KRW 415, KRW 1485, KRW 145, and KRW 5814, KRW 15.

Therefore, the plaintiff et al. is obligated to pay the amount of money and damages corresponding to each of the above shares of inheritance at the rate of five percent per annum from the date of compulsory execution to the date of full payment.

4. If so, the appeal by the plaintiff et al. is dismissed as without merit. Since the defendant's appeal is well-grounded, Articles 96, 95, 89, and 93 of the Civil Procedure Act shall apply to the burden of litigation costs, and the provisional execution order shall not be attached. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Park Woo-young (Presiding Judge)