In the time of the implementation of the Land Readjustment Project before the amendment by Act No. 3255 of Jan. 4, 1980, if the land substitution plan has been authorized under Article 46, the liquidation amount shall be calculated on the basis of the land price at the time of authorization of the land substitution plan. However, since the amended Act of Jan. 4, 1980 requires Article 52(2) to newly establish Article 52(2) and determine liquidation amount at the time of a land substitution plan, if a land substitution plan is authorized after the enforcement of the above amended Act and a land substitution plan is completed accordingly, the liquidation amount shall be calculated on the basis of the land price at the time of a land substitution plan. If a land substitution plan was authorized before the amendment of the above Act but a land substitution plan was revised after the initial change of area after the amendment, and a land substitution plan was publicly announced after obtaining authorization of change, the authorization of a land substitution plan and a land substitution plan shall be calculated on the basis of the land price at the time of a land substitution plan (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Nu39.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the approval of the land substitution plan for the land substitution project of this case was first announced on November 20, 1970 (Yedong 1 District) and October 28, 1971 (Yedong 2 District), but it was difficult to view that the land substitution plan of this case was approved for the land substitution plan of this case as the standard market price for the calculation of the liquidation price under the provisions of the Act prior to the amendment of the Act prior to the enforcement of the land substitution plan, and that the land substitution plan of this case was modified for the last time on the premise that the collection and delivery area should be settled later on the basis that the land substitution plan was not determined for the last time. The first land substitution plan was revised on December 28, 191 and publicly announced on the same day on the same day, and since it was difficult to view that the public notification of the land substitution plan of this case was the standard market price for the calculation of liquidation price under the provisions of the Act prior to the amendment of the Act prior to the implementation of the land substitution plan.

The above recognition and judgment of the court below are deemed correct, and there is no error of law by mistake of facts or by misunderstanding of legal principles, which points out the theory of lawsuit. The Supreme Court's decision that the theory of lawsuit is not appropriate to be invoked in this case is different from the case. All the arguments are without merit.

Therefore, all appeals are 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 on the bench.

Justices Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)