(b) Whether the land corresponding to the latter part of Article 53(2) of the Act on the Land Readjustment and Rearrangement Projects before the amendment is subject to the delivery of settlement money, in addition to the determination of replotting;

B. The land corresponding to the latter part of Article 53(2) of the Act on Land Readjustment and Rearrangement Projects before the amendment is not the land subject to which no land substitution is provided, in addition to the land substitution.

However, the public inspection procedure under Article 33 of the Land Readjustment Projects Act is merely to give the landowner or interested party within the land zone project implementation zone an opportunity to submit a written opinion on the project plan of the project implementer. Thus, the land owner did not submit a written opinion during the public inspection period, so it cannot be said that the land owner provided the land free of charge for the implementation of the project or that the claim for damages arising from the land readjustment project illegally implemented is not extinguished. Therefore, the judgment of the court below to the same purport is just

The second ground of appeal is examined.

Even if the land was actually contaminated for public use, if the Plaintiff, the owner of the land, provided the land without compensation, and if the project implementer loses ownership through a final public announcement of replotting disposition without designating a substitute lot for this land and without paying a considerable liquidation money, the project implementer shall not be held to the extent of the tort liability for the illegal execution of the land readjustment project within the scope, and the amount of the damages shall not exceed the extent of the liquidation amount anticipated to have been paid if the land was paid the liquidation amount (see Supreme Court Decision 74Da1548, Apr. 22, 1975). (See Supreme Court Decision 74Da1548, Apr. 2, 1975). Even if it is based on Article 53(2) of the Land Readjustment and Rearrangement Projects Act prior to the amendment, it shall not be deemed that the land is the land subject to which the liquidation amount is not given, as well as the land corresponding to the latter land, and the liquidation amount shall not be considered as the object of the land substitution plan, and thus, it shall not be deemed unlawful.

The grounds of appeal No. 3 are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the average depreciation rate of the land in the land division and rearrangement project district of this case is 30.3 percent, and the amount of the liquidation money for the neighboring land of this case is 12,000 won per square year, and based on the defendant's unlawful disposition as above, the amount of damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the plaintiff's loss of ownership of this case's land of this case is calculated by multiplying the area of the right after deducting the above average depreciation rate from the land of this case by 12,00 won per square year. In light of the records, unless there are any special circumstances that appear to be due to legitimate recognition, the appraisal amount of liquidation money for the neighboring land shall be deemed to be the price of liquidation money determined in the replotting plan in the implementation of the land division and rearrangement project of this case. The judgment below is justifiable in that it shall not be deemed that the amount of liquidation money is calculated as the price of liquidation money determined in the replotting plan in this case's execution of the land division and rearrangement project of this case. The ground of additional appeal by the defendant shall

The Act on Special Cases concerning the Acquisition of Land for Public Use and Compensation for Loss, enforced July 1, 1976, No. 31, 1975, cannot be applied to the land of this case, which has been completed by a land readjustment project, before it is old, so it is unreasonable to discuss that it is unlawful in violation of the legal principles of this Act.

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

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)