2. Where authorization for a land substitution plan has been granted at the time of the enforcement of the former Land Readjustment Project Act (amended by Act No. 3255 of January 4, 1980), but authorization for change has been granted after the amendment of the Act, the time of calculating the liquidation money for replotting;

2. In a case where a land substitution plan was authorized at the time of the enforcement of the former Land Readjustment Project Act (amended by Act No. 3255 of Jan. 4, 1980), but a land substitution plan was modified and publicly announced after obtaining authorization for modification due to reasons such as change of area after the amendment of laws, etc., the authorization for a land substitution plan and a land substitution disposition for a land substitution project were conducted after the enforcement of the amended Act, and the calculation of liquidation money shall be based on the land price at the time of a land substitution disposition under Article 52(2)

2. Supreme Court Decision 90Nu3591 Decided May 10, 1991 (No. 39 ②48Gong1991, 1649)

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Two-minutes of litigation costs are assessed against the defendant, and the remainder is assessed against the plaintiff.

The following facts are acknowledged in full view of the facts without dispute between the parties, Gap evidence 1-1 through Eul evidence 3, Eul evidence 1 through Eul evidence 6, Eul evidence 8-1 through Eul evidence 13-3 (Provided, That the part which is not trusted after the entry of Eul evidence 5) and the whole purport of the argument in this court as to the Seoul Special Metropolitan City as a result of fact inquiry against the Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

(1) The Plaintiff originally owned each land listed in attached Form 1-1 (1) (2) (3) and attached Form 1-4 (hereinafter “the previous land of this case”) and the land listed in attached Table 1-1 (4) (hereinafter “the previous land of this case”).

(2) However, on January 18, 1968, the Defendant obtained authorization for the implementation of a land readjustment project from the Minister of Construction and Transportation on August 24, 1971 with respect to the whole land, including the previous land of this case Nos. 1 and 2, and on November 20, 1970 (Yedong 1 District) and around October 1971 (Yedong 2 District), designated the land substitution plan and the land substitution plan as well as the land substitution plan. However, the above land substitution plan did not contain a detailed statement about the amount of money collected, but only was designated as the previous land on the premise that the amount of money collected should be settled later.

(3) The first land substitution plan, in which a detailed statement of liquidation amount concerning the land rearrangement of this case was prepared, was formulated on January 1, 1982, and thereafter the number was modified, and the last business plan and land substitution plan was modified on November 21, 1991, and the defendant announced the land substitution project of this case (1 and 2 districts) and the land substitution plan alteration and land substitution disposition on December 28, 199.

(4) According to the above replotting plan, the previous land of this case was replaced by the land of this case [hereinafter referred to as the land of this case (hereinafter referred to as the land of this case) and the land of this case 2-1 (3) (4) (5) [hereinafter referred to as the land of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "land of this case" of this case and all of the above land added to the land of this case]. The land of this case of paragraph (1) (2) of this case is 53 square meters below the area of right, the land of this case is 24.3 square meters below the area of right, and the land of this case is 10 square meters below the area of right, and the land of this case (4) of this case was 12.7 square meters below the area of right.

(5) In order to calculate the liquidation money against the Plaintiff’s excessive plane, the Defendant requested the appraisal corporation to assess the price of each of the instant land at the time of the price of December 28, 1991, which is the time of the instant land substitution disposition. The said appraisal corporation assessed the price of each of the instant land at KRW 3,00,000 per square meter for the instant land, KRW 2,00,000 per square meter for the instant land, KRW 1,790,000 per square meter for the instant land, and KRW 2,000 per square meter for the instant land, KRW 4,00 for the instant land, and KRW 2,010,000 per square meter for the instant land.

(6) On June 26, 1992, on the basis of the above evaluation, the Defendant calculated the amount of the excessive balance, and issued a disposition imposing the liquidation money, such as the entry in the purport of the claim, to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

2. The legality of the instant lawsuit

The defendant asserts that in the land readjustment project, the collection disposition or imposition disposition of the land substitution liquidation money is included in the land substitution disposition pursuant to the land substitution plan, and that, after the land substitution disposition becomes effective after the land substitution disposition becomes effective after the public announcement once again, only part of the land substitution disposition shall be removed, and that, unless the whole procedure of land substitution is followed from the beginning, it shall not change the land substitution disposition: Provided, That if there is an error in the land substitution disposition, there is no legal interest to seek a cancellation of part of the land substitution disposition, since there is no legal interest to seek a cancellation of part of the land substitution disposition, since there is no interest in lawsuit.

On the other hand, since the collection or delivery disposition of the liquidation money in the land substitution plan is included in the land substitution plan under the land substitution plan, the rights and duties of the liquidation money determined in the land substitution plan shall be determined on the day following the public announcement date of the land substitution plan (Article 62(5) of the Land substitution and Rearrangement Projects Act). Since the land substitution disposition becomes effective after the public announcement of a group of land substitution disposition, it cannot change the effect of the land substitution determination by removing only a part of the procedure, unless the whole procedure of the land substitution is followed from the beginning. However, even though the land substitution disposition becomes final and conclusive, it does not mean that the related right holder who is dissatisfied with the liquidation money cannot appeal or institute an administrative litigation against it. Furthermore, even if the land substitution disposition is the procedure of the land substitution disposition, it is recognized that the land substitution disposition is a disposition conducted after the land substitution disposition, and thus, it is independent of the land substitution disposition, and thus, the lawsuit seeking the cancellation of the land substitution disposition is unlawful as there is no reason for the defendant's assertion (the defendant's assertion is not justified (Article 2985No. 29.585.29.

3. The illegality of the instant disposition

(a) Standard time for liquidation money for replotting;

When a land substitution plan was authorized under Article 46 at the time of the implementation of the Land Readjustment Project before the amendment by Act No. 3255 of Jan. 4, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act before the amendment"), the liquidation amount shall be calculated on the basis of the land price at the time when the land substitution plan was a land substitution plan. However, as the amended Act (hereinafter referred to as the "amended Act") on Jan. 4, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the "amended Act") newly established Article 52 (2) and newly established Article 52 (2) and decided the liquidation amount at the time of a land substitution plan, the liquidation amount shall be calculated on the basis of the land price at the time of a land substitution plan when the land substitution plan was authorized before the amendment while the land substitution plan was implemented. In addition, if a land substitution plan was authorized before the amendment but after the amendment after the amendment after the alteration of the original land area, the authorization of a land substitution plan and a land substitution plan were conducted after the amendment of the Act after the implementation of the Act, the land substitution plan shall be calculated on the basis of a land.

However, according to the above facts, the authorization of the land substitution plan for the land substitution project of this case was first announced on November 20, 1970 (former District 1) and around October 2, 1971 (former District 2 District 1, 1968), but it was argued that there was authorization of the land substitution plan on January 18, 1968, but the first date is the date when the land substitution plan was implemented. Since the first land substitution plan was established on January 1, 1982, the first land substitution plan was not prepared on the first date when the land substitution plan was implemented on the first date when the land substitution plan was implemented, it is difficult to view that the land substitution plan of this case was the standard market price calculation for the land price calculation under the Act prior to the first date when the land substitution plan was announced on November 20, 1982, and the second date of the first land substitution plan was also an alteration of the land substitution plan under the Act prior to the first date when the land substitution plan was implemented on the second date.

(b) Calculation of land price;

(1) Provisions of the statute

Article 4 of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act (hereinafter “Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc.”) provides that “The Minister of Construction and Transportation shall publish the officially announced land price as of the basic date every year with respect to the reference land selected from among a group of lands deemed similar to natural and social conditions.” Article 9(2) of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act provides that “The appraisal of individual land shall be conducted by comparing and assessing factors affecting the objective value of land, such as the location, topography, environment, etc. of one or more reference land or two or more reference land deemed to have similar usefulness,” and Article 17(1) of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. (No. 460 of December 21, 1989) provides that “The appraisal of land shall be conducted by comprehensively taking into account the price increase, wholesale and other matters from the basic date to the basic date based on the officially announced land price of one or more reference land located in the same or a similar neighborhood.”

In addition, Article 10 (1) of the Public Notice of Values Act provides that "the State, local governments, government-invested institutions under the Public Notice of Values Act, government-invested institutions under the Government-Invested Institutions Act, and other public organizations prescribed by the Presidential Decree shall, in case of calculating the price of the land for the following purposes, maintain a balance between the price and the price of the land on the basis of the officially announced value of one or more reference land or more prices deemed to have similar value to the land in question: Provided, That if it is deemed necessary, the calculated land price may be adjusted and applied according to the purpose falling under any of the following subparagraphs, and Article 10 (1) 6 provides "the calculation of the price of land as prescribed by the Presidential Decree

Therefore, the calculation of the land price, which is the basis of the land substitution settlement money under the Land Rearrangement and Rearrangement Projects Act, should be made by selecting one or more reference land or two or more reference land deemed to have similar utility value to the land, taking into account the land price fluctuation rate up to the time of the land substitution settlement based on the officially announced land price, and comparing and comparing factors affecting the objective value of the land such as the location, topography, and environment with the reference land and the land

(2) However, in assessing the land of this case along with several parcels of land to be incorporated into the land readjustment project of this case, it is difficult to find out which reference land was used as the reference land for the land of this case. In addition, in calculating the land price of December 28, 191, which is the time-revision as of January 1, 1991, the appraisal by the appraisal corporation, which is the basis for the calculation of the liquidation amount of this case, was not calculated by the time-revision based on the officially announced land price of December 28, 191 and January 1, 1992, on the ground that the difference between the officially announced land price of this case and the officially announced land price of January 1, 1992, the appraisal corporation calculated the officially announced land price of this case as of January 1, 1992 as the price of the land of this case (written evidence No. 5).

(3) Ultimately, the above appraisal erred in applying the standard time for the selection of the reference land and the calculation of the price of land, and the instant disposition that determined the liquidation amount based on the result of such erroneous appraisal shall also be deemed unlawful.

4. Liquidation money appropriate for the replotting disposition of this case.

A. Therefore, it is recognized that the following facts are comprehensively taken into account the results of the on-site inspection by the court, the results of the appraisal of the appraiser Park Dong-hwan with respect to the appropriate price of the land in this case, and the purport of the pleading, and contrary to the above, the partial entry of No. 5 (except the above trusted part) in the evidence No. 5 (except the above part) cannot be believed

(1) The land of this case is located at approximately 50 to 130 meters in the straight line on the northwest of the Seocho National School; the land of this case is located at approximately 100 meters in the straight line on the northwest of the New National School; and the land of this case at approximately 70 meters in the straight line on the northwest of the New National School.

(2) The land of this case (1) (2) (3) is the land of the Plaintiff church located in the usual place, and the land of (4) (5) was used as the residential place, and all of them was designated as the general residential area, parking lot improvement zone and apartment zone in the urban planning.

(3) The appropriate reference land for the land of this case is the 1528.6 m2 m2, Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Seocho-gu, where the use, land category, surrounding environment, road traffic, etc. of the land is located in the same or similar neighborhood [the land of this case with respect to the land of this case] and 157 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,70,000 m2,000 m2,00 as of January 1, 1991.

(4) The Seocho-gu Residential Land Price Pricing rate of the Seocho-gu where the instant land is located during the period from the above basic date to December 28 of the same year, which is the land substitution liquidation date.

On the other hand, wholesale price inflation in the same period is approximately 2.6%, which is considerably lower than the rate of land price fluctuation.

(5) If the instant land and each of the reference land above are lighted, the comparison would be 0.73, 0.5, 0.56, 0.88, 1 in sequence.

B. Therefore, according to the fact of recognition of the above "A", if the land price of this case is calculated at a reasonable price per square meter and per square meter by applying the market score, politics, goods, etc. in turn to the officially announced land price of the above standard land in accordance with the fact of recognition of the above "A", each amount listed in the annexed

In addition, the amount of the cost for the excessive volume of the window that is calculated by multiplying the above horizontal price by the area of the above horizontal area shall be 380,95,804 won (7,378,00 x 53 x 74.9/795.4 x 74.9/795.4 x hereinafter the same shall apply) of the land in this case; 6,903,659 won (5,000 x 5,054,00 x 53 x 53 x 20.5/795.4 x 53 x 53 x 54,154,167 won (5,659,00 x 5,659,00 x 245,930,00 x 6,740 x 740 x 70 x 138.9).

Therefore, liquidation money for the previous land of this case is KRW 387,859,463 (380,95,804 +6,903,659) with the previous land of this case and KRW 144,154,167 with the previous land of this case.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, among the disposition of imposition of the land substitution liquidation amount of KRW 525,62,200 for the previous land of this case, the part exceeding KRW 387,859,463 for the above recognition and the part exceeding KRW 144,154,167 for the disposition of imposition of the land substitution liquidation amount of KRW 159,132,650 for the previous land of this case shall be revoked, respectively. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case of this case shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder shall be dismissed as it is without merit.

[Attachment]

Judges Full-time (Presiding Judge)