[환지청산금부과처분취소][공1995.2.1.(985),684]
Standard time of land price for computing the liquidation money for replotting under the Land Rearrangement and Rearrangement Projects Act.
When a land substitution plan was approved under Article 46 at the time of the implementation of the Land Partition and Rearrangement Projects Act before the amendment by Act No. 3255 of Jan. 4, 1980, the liquidation money 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 that the liquidation amount be determined after the implementation of the above amended Act shall be determined at the time of a land substitution plan. If a land substitution plan was approved after the implementation of the above amended Act and a land substitution plan was taken 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 approved after the amendment of the original land substitution plan was approved after the amendment of the amended Act, the authorization of the land substitution plan and the land substitution plan were all conducted after the implementation of the above amended Act, and thus, the calculation
Article 46 of the former Land Planning and Rearrangement Projects Act (amended by Act No. 3255 of Jan. 4, 1980); Article 52 (2) of the Land Planning and Rearrangement Projects Act
[Plaintiff-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Domin-young and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellee)
Attorney Kim Byung-jin et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee and two others, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee)
Attorney Ko Young-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee-appellant and one other
Seoul High Court Decision 92Gu32014 delivered on October 13, 1993
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.
1. As to the misconception of facts against the rules of evidence and the misapprehension of the legal principle on the standard time for calculating liquidation money
When a land substitution plan was authorized under Article 46 at the time of the implementation of a land substitution plan before the amendment by Act No. 3255 of Jan. 4, 1980, 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 that the liquidation amount be determined at the time of a land substitution plan by newly establishing Article 52(2). Thus, if a land substitution plan is authorized after the enforcement of the above amended Act and a land substitution plan was 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 conducted after obtaining an initial change in the land size after the amendment, the authorization of a land substitution plan and a land substitution disposition were conducted after the implementation of the above amended Act, the calculation of liquidation amount shall be based on the land price at the time of a land substitution plan (see Supreme Court Decision 90Nu3910, May 1, 19991).
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 (former Dong 1 District) and around October 20, 1971 (former Dong 2 District), but did not prepare a detailed statement of liquidation amount classified by land type and right in the land substitution plan, and on the premise that the collected and delivered area should be liquidated later, only the previous land was designated as land substitution plan. The initial land substitution plan was changed several times on November 21, 1991, since the project plan and the land substitution plan were modified on December 28, 1991, and the land substitution plan was announced on December 28, 199, and the land substitution plan was publicly announced on the day, and it was difficult to view that the land substitution plan of this case was modified as the standard for calculating the standard market price for the last land substitution plan under the amended Act, which was enforced at the time of the public announcement of the above land substitution plan.
In light of the records and relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the above recognition and judgment of the court below are just, and there is no error of misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles pointing out the theory of lawsuit. There is no ground for appeal.
2. As to the misapprehension of legal principle as to the method of calculating the liquidation amount
Since the excessive area No. 1 of the judgment of the court below for the previous land of this case did not distinguish the details of the increase in the area by lot of the substitute land, and there is a difference in the price of the land by lot, it shall be deemed that there is no error in the court below's measure that calculated the excessive area of No. 53 by dividing the excessive area by the corresponding portion of the land of this case and the corresponding portion of the land of this case, which is the substitute land, by the appraised price of each corresponding increased area by the appraisal price of each substitute land. The arguments are not acceptable as an independent calculation method, which made it favorable for the plaintiff only, without disregarding the ratio of area of each substitute
On the other hand, with respect to the settlement money portion of the previous land No. 2 in the decision of the court below, since the theory of lawsuit is more unfavorable to the plaintiff than the amount recognized by the court below as legitimate settlement money, this part of the lawsuit is without merit by its assertion itself.
3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Cho Chang-tae (Presiding Justice)