2. Timing for evaluating the amount of compensation for farmland attached facilities;

3. Right to claim compensation and interruption of prescription against farmland attached facilities.

4. Purpose of Article 11 of the Act on Special Measures for Arrangement of Farmland Reform Projects;

5. Whether the rate of compensation and reduction for facilities annexed to farmland is applied;

2. With respect to the facilities under Article 2 (2) (a) of the Farmland Reform Act, compensation shall be made on the basis of the price of June 21, 1949 (the time when the State promulgated the Farmland Reform Act), which was at the time of the purchase of farmland, by implementing the farmland reform. Accordingly, the new adjustment price of the facilities under Article 2 (2) (a) and the price of YY at the time of June 21, 1949 shall be calculated on the basis of the period as of June 21, 1949 (in relation to the YY, Article 7 of the Grain Purchase Act, which was in force at the time of enforcement, and Article 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Purchase Act, until June 21, 1949, the price of purchase publicly announced under the above Grain Purchase Act in the preceding year, namely, the price of YM at the time of enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act) as of October 13, 1960.

3. According to the provisions of Article 11 of the Act on Special Measures for the Adjustment of Farmland Reform Projects, the right to claim compensation for facilities annexed to farmland can be claimed within one year from the enforcement date of the Act, so the same Act recognizes the obligation to pay compensation, the compensation of which has not been completed.

4. According to Article 11 of the Act on Special Measures for the Adjustment of Farmland Reform Projects, a claim for compensation against farmland and facilities annexed to farmland purchased pursuant to Article 5 subparagraph 2 of the Farmland Reform Act shall be extinguished if it is not claimed within one year from the enforcement date of the said Act. The above period shall be the exclusion period, and after March 13, 1969 when one year has passed since the enforcement date of the said Act, a claim for compensation against the same affiliated facilities is a claim for compensation for the same affiliated facilities, and even if the purport of the claim is expanded or amended by putting the claim on the basis of the claim claimed within the said period, the claim for the portion exceeding the compensation

5. In compensating for facilities annexed to farmland, the reduction rate shall not apply in nature.

2. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

3. The text of the original judgment shall be modified as follows:

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff an amount of KRW 39,506,500 and KRW 3,200,000 from May 27, 198, and KRW 36,306,50 from June 28, 1968 to the full payment system.

4. The part of the plaintiff's claim for extension except the dismissed part in the above paragraph (1) among the part of the plaintiff's claim for extension in the trial shall be dismissed.

5. The costs of the lawsuit after the appeal shall be borne by the defendant, and those of the lawsuit incurred by the plaintiff's expansion of the claim in the trial shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant and the declaration of provisional execution.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

According to the records, the plaintiff's claim from the court below, 49,235,60 won and 3,20,00 won and 46,00 won and 46,035,60 won per annum from March 27, 1968 to 97.6% per annum for 20,000 won and 9.6% per annum for 20,000 won and 9.6% per annum for 20,000 won and 9.6% per annum for 20,000 won and 9.6% per annum for 20,000 won and 9.6% per annum for 30,000 won and 9.6% per annum for 20,000 won and 9.6% per annum for 30,000 won and 9,000 won per annum for 20,000 won per annum for 30,000 won per annum for 20,000 won.

(Ⅱ) the liability to compensate.

(1) Since there is no dispute over the establishment of the above portion of the farmland No. 3 (Evidence No. 1) and No. 2 (certificate No. 2) for which the above part of the farmland No. 1 were presumed to be true, each part of the evidence No. 2 (No. 1 and No. 2) for which No. 1 and No. 2 (No. 1 and No. 2), the testimony of Non-party 1 before remand, and the result of the examination of each land before and after the remand of the original judgment, and the purport of the pleading No. 1 and No. 2, each of the facilities listed in No. 1 and No. 2 for which the non-party 1 and No. 3 were assigned to the defendant for the purchase of the above part of the farmland No. 1 and No. 5 (No. 1 and No. 2) for which the defendant acquired the above part of the above farmland No. 1 and No. 97 for the purchase of the farmland No. 1 and No. 5 of the above part of the above farmland No. 1 and the annexed No. 97.

(2) Among the above facilities, the Defendant is a building by the method of farmland formation and cannot be the object of rights independent from the farmland. In particular, since the construction cost of tide embankments is formed in the case of reclaimed farmland, such as this case, the construction cost of tide embankments is the immediate farmland creation cost. Thus, the value of reclaimed farmland includes the cost of construction of tide embankments. The Defendant written full compensation for the above reclaimed farmland, and the special compensation under Article 6 (1) 8 of the Farmland Reform Act, Article 12 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act, and Article 3 (2) of the Act on Special Measures for the Adjustment of Farmland Reform Projects is not only the special compensation under Article 3 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, but also the compensation for the above tide is merely a double compensation if the compensation for the above tide is made again, and it goes against the purpose of legislation and the principle of equity under Article 6 (1) 8 of the Farmland Reform Act and Article 7 of the same Act, and thus, the provision of the compensation for the purchase of the farmland in question is not for each piece of land.

(III) Amount of compensation

(1) Furthermore, according to Article 7 (1) 3 (a) of the Farmland Reform Act, the amount that the Defendant is obligated to compensate should be determined based on the price of June 21, 1949 (the enforcement date of the Farmland Reform Act), since Article 7 (1) 1 of the same Act provides that the facilities under Article 7 (2) 3 (a) of the same Act shall be separately calculated at the market price for the facilities under Article 7 (1) 2 (b) of the same Act, and the amount of compensation for the portion of the compensation for the facilities under Article 7 (1) 1 of the same Act shall be calculated as corresponding to that of Article 7 (1) 1 of the same Act, the above facilities under Article 7 (1) 1 of the same Act shall be determined based on the new price of the facilities under subparagraph (a) of the same Article and the amount of compensation for the portion of the compensation for the farmland under Article 7 (1) 16 (1) of the same Act shall be determined based on the purchase price of the farmland under Article 7 (190) of the Grain Act for the preceding year.

(2) According to the above statement No. 4 (No. 1) and the above statement No. 2 (No. 6) regarding the calculation of compensation amount, the average of the above statement No. 1 and the above statement No. 2 (No. 1 and No. 4) for the above statement No. 1 and the above statement No. 5 (No. 6) for the 6th anniversary of the above statement No. 1 and the above statement No. 2 (No. 1 and No. 4) for the above statement No. 1 and the above statement No. 9 (No. 6) for the 5th anniversary of the above statement No. 1 and the above statement No. 2, the average of No. 1 and No. 15 (No. 1 and No. 10) for the above statement No. 2, the court below's 1 and No. 2 (No. 6th of the above statement No. 9) for the 5th appraisal of the above statement No. 9 (No. 7) for the above statement No. 1 and No.

(3) In calculating the new price of the above sub-paragraph (a) above, the defendant is based on the land improvement project cost and unit price of June 21, 1949, which is the time of the promulgation of the Farmland Reform Act. Thus, the fixed price of the above sub-paragraph (a) also should be determined by applying the above temporary fixed price method. In order to determine the amount of compensation by applying the fixed price of the above sub-paragraph (a) in 1948, the new price of the above sub-paragraph (a) should be determined by the market price of 1948. However, since the above new price of the facility and the fixed price of the above sub-paragraph (a) should be compensated by the market price of the above sub-paragraph (a) at the time of the purchase, the defendant's new price of the facility and the fixed price of the above sub-paragraph (a) should be calculated based on the price of the above sub-paragraph (a) at the time of the above purchase, the above tin price of the above sub-paragraph (1) at the time of the above 94th of the fixed price of the year.

(4) The defendant should receive compensation for each of the above farmland appurtenant facilities until May 31, 1955, since the five-year prescription has expired after the same year, the right to claim compensation for each of the above farmland appurtenant facilities has expired, and even if not, the amount of compensation for the facilities under subparagraph (b) of the same subparagraph has been compensated for five-year period from 1960 to 1963. Thus, since the portion of the right to claim compensation for the facilities under subparagraph (b) of the same subparagraph has expired from 1960 to 1963, the above five-year period from among the right to claim compensation for the facilities under subparagraph (b) of the same subparagraph has expired, the right to claim compensation for the farmland appurtenant facilities may be claimed within one year from the date of enforcement of the same Act, so it shall be deemed that the defendant approved the debt of compensation for which the compensation has not been completed as a result of the same Act, and it is clear that the defendant's assertion that the above lawsuit was not in force before March 13, 1968.

(5) The defendant's claim for compensation for the farmland appurtenant facilities shall be filed within one year from the date of enforcement of the Act pursuant to Article 11 of the Act on Special Measures for the Adjustment of Farmland Reform Projects. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for compensation for the farmland appurtenant facilities within 39,506,500 won as the claim for compensation, but the claim for compensation for 73,52,482 won by expanding the claim after the above period of request (up to March 12, 1969) expires, and the above amount exceeding 39,506,50 won is asserted to be extinguished pursuant to Article 11 of the same Act. Thus, according to Article 11 of the same Act, the compensation claim for the farmland and appurtenant facilities purchased pursuant to Article 5, subparagraph 2 of the same Act shall be limited to the exclusion period of 1,506,500 won, and it shall be limited to the exclusion period of 30,000 won and damages for delay within the exclusion period of 1,500,0000 won,000 won.

(6) Although the defendant is liable to pay the compensation, the defendant's assertion is groundless since it is interpreted that the reduction rate cannot be applied by nature to the compensation for the farmland attached facilities.

(7) Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the compensation amount of KRW 39,50,50 which is recognized as above to the plaintiff. The above compensation amount of KRW 3,200,00 shall be paid without delay upon the plaintiff's request from the defendant. Of the above amount, for KRW 36,30,00,00, the service of a copy of the gushesheshesheshes (record March 26, 1968) shall be made with the service of a copy of the plaintiff's briefs (record June 27, 1968), for KRW 36,30,000 from March 27, 1968 to KRW 36,306,306,50 from June 28, 1968 to KRW 200,306,500 from KRW 200 to KRW 36,500 per annum, and the defendant shall be obligated to pay the remaining amount of KRW 360,500,000,000 per annum.

(Ⅳ) Accordingly, the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 39,506,50 and KRW 3,200,000 from May 27, 1968 to KRW 36,306,50 per annum from June 28, 1968 to the full payment system, and the amount of KRW 36,300 per annum from June 28, 1968 to KRW 5% per annum from March 27, 1968 to May 26, 1968 to KRW 3,200,00 with KRW 3,50 per annum from May 27, 1968 to KRW 36,306,50, and the plaintiff shall be dismissed from the judgment of the court below with respect to the remainder of KRW 36,500 with respect to the above provisional execution, and the plaintiff shall be dismissed from the judgment of the court below to the remainder of the above provisional execution. Therefore, the plaintiff shall be dismissed from the judgment of the court below.

Judges Kim Yong-chul (Presiding Justice)