2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or comprehensively taking account of Gap evidence 3, 4, Eul evidence 5-1, 5-2, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 3-1 through 4, Eul evidence 4-1, 2, Eul evidence 5-1 through 3, Eul evidence 6-1, 6-2, Eul evidence 7-1 through 3, Eul evidence 8-1 through 3, Eul evidence 9-1, 10-2, Eul evidence 11, 12-1, Eul evidence 12-1, 13, Eul evidence 14-1 through 3, Eul evidence 15-1, 16-1 through 4, 12-17, 12-2, 17-1, 2-1, 2-2, 3-1, 2-4, 17-1, 2-2, 3-1, 2-2, 3-2, 2-1, 2-

A. On March 17, 1980, the Defendant, with respect to the daily area of 2,175,946 square meters, such as Gyeyang-si, Ansan-si, Hodong, Sinpo-si, Sinpo-si, Sinpo-si, Sinpo-si, Sinpo-si, and Sinpo-dong, had obtained approval from the Minister of Construction and Transportation for the execution of a land readjustment and rearrangement project, and completed a land readjustment plan on December 28, 199. In this process, the Defendant did not comply with the procedure

B. On December 17, 1983, the Suwon District Court received 126964 on December 17, 1983, and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the Plaintiff’s name after purchasing from the non-party 4, 344 square meters and non-party 4, Dongpo-si, Dongpo-si, which includes a part of the said project district. The Defendant divided it into two parcels of the said 402-4, 13 of the said Act, under Article 43 of the Land Readjustment and Rearrangement Projects Act, during the implementation of the said project.

C. Among them, the same 402-13 square meters of the same 402-13 square meters of the same 402-2 (hereinafter referred to as the "land in this case") applied 70% reduction rate to 70%, and the area was merely 80.4 square meters of the land in this case, and the defendant decided to grant the liquidation money without designating the substitute land in advance pursuant to Article 52 of the Land Readjustment and Rearrangement Projects Act, and the delivery area of liquidation money is 80.4 square meters and liquidation money, which was reported above pursuant to Article 52 of the same Act. On October 25, 1990 as of October 25, 1990 near the date of the above disposition of replotting, the appraisal of the land in this case was requested to two appraisal institutions with an average value of 525,00 won, and the liquidation money in this case was determined as 68,380,200 won in calculating the last settlement money in consideration of the size, use status, environment, and other matters.

D. On May 24, 1993, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for the payment of the above liquidation amount. Accordingly, on May 27, 1993, the Defendant transferred KRW 68,230,200 to the head of the Tong designated by the Plaintiff, excluding KRW 150,000,00 for the costs of the land claim case No. 90 Gohap6876, May 299, which was after the disposition of replotting.

2. Judgment on the ground of the Plaintiff’s claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that since the plaintiff arbitrarily changed the land category from the response to the non-party's purchase of the land of this case from the non-party title to the ditch, designated the land of this case as a reserved land for replotting without the plaintiff's consent or consent on December 28, 1990 and lost the plaintiff's ownership to the land of this case by taking a replotting disposition on December 28, 1990, and applied the reduction rate unilaterally to the reduction rate of 70% and did not designate a substitute land on the ground that the area of right is less than 80.4 square meters, no benefit from the development gains shall be paid. Furthermore, in calculating the liquidation amount, the reduction rate shall not apply to the land excluded from the replotting plan and must be calculated as at the time of the designation of the substitute land, and since the defendant calculated and delivered the liquidation amount in accordance with the reduction rate and the land category applied unfairly and thereby infringed the private property of the individual, the defendant should compensate the plaintiff for damages caused by such unlawful or unjust administrative acts.

(b) Markets:

However, in order to establish a tort against the plaintiff when the plaintiff lost ownership due to the defendant's execution of a land readjustment project for the land of this case under the Land Readjustment Project Act, even though the plaintiff did not provide land substitution for the land of this case, the defendant did not designate the land of this case and did not pay the liquidation money, and in the case where the defendant decided not to pay the liquidation money and did not include it in the details of the land substitution plan, it should have serious defects in the procedure for calculating liquidation amount in the procedure for calculating liquidation amount, and without such circumstance, the plaintiff's claim that the plaintiff's land substitution disposition of this case was established against the plaintiff cannot be deemed as a tort against the plaintiff, merely because the plaintiff's own assertion that the amount was less than the market price or the land category of the land of this case was changed from the response to the land of this case to a ditch, and that the plaintiff's land substitution disposition of this case did not constitute a tort against the plaintiff.

Furthermore, in determining the settlement amount, the settlement amount shall be calculated by applying the reduction rate to the land subject to liquidation, which is calculated based on the time of the disposition of replotting, in light of the idea that the settlement amount is to be determined based on the time of the disposition of replotting by newly establishing Article 52(2) of the Act, as the Act was amended on January 4, 1980, and the settlement amount is to be determined based on the time of the disposition of replotting. In light of the idea that the collection and delivery of settlement amount is based on the idea that the collection and delivery of settlement amount objectively exist with respect to the previous land and to eliminate unfair results such as the benefits and losses arising from the excess or excess of the registered replotting amount, which actually existed in the previous land, and the time of calculating settlement amount is calculated based on the time of the disposition of replotting as of October 26, 1976, which is the time of the disposition of replotting under the newly established provision above (Supreme Court Decision 76Da1533, Oct. 26, 1976).

3. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case, which is premised on the defendant's tort, is without merit, and it is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Jeon Sung-jin (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Judge)