[소유권확인등][공1996.9.1.(17),2481]
The meaning of "land for use by public facilities" under Article 63 of the Land Readjustment Projects Act;
The "land for use of public facilities resulting from the execution of a land readjustment project, which belongs to the State or a local government according to the classification of the manager on the following day from the date when a land substitution disposition is publicly announced under Article 63 of the Land Readjustment and Rearrangement Projects Act" means only the land for use of public facilities resulting from the execution of a land readjustment project by legitimate means, and the land which becomes the land for use of public facilities by the operator due to the error of surveying in conducting the construction of public facilities when the operator installs the public facilities, is not included in the land which became the land for use of public facilities as a result of the construction of public facilities
Article 63 of the Land Readjustment Projects Act
Plaintiff 1 and two others (Attorney Kim In-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
The Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and one other (Attorney Go Young-deok, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
Seoul District Court Decision 95Na45407 delivered on January 26, 1996
All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
The land used for the use of public facilities resulting from the execution of a land readjustment and rearrangement project, which belongs to the State or a local government according to the classification of the manager, on the following day from the date of the public notice of a land substitution disposition under Article 63 of the Land Readjustment and Rearrangement Projects Act, means only the land used for the use of public facilities arising from the execution of the land readjustment and rearrangement project, which is legally executed by the operator. In this case, as in this case, when the operator erroneously conducted a survey in the construction of public facilities, the land which became the land for public facilities as a result of the construction of public facilities by erosion of adjacent land stipulated in the previous land in a land substitution plan, is not included in this case. Thus, the land Nos. 1 and 2 in the judgment of the court below cannot be deemed as the land owned by the defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City under Article 63, and therefore, the land substitution disposition of
The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error of law such as the theory of lawsuit.
In addition, the Supreme Court Decision 74Da252 Decided June 10, 1975 cited as the arguments is different from the case in this case, and it is not a precedent to be invoked in this case. All 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 Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)