With respect to the land provided for public ditches in the area where a land readjustment project is implemented, no land substitution shall be determined in the land substitution plan.

With respect to the land provided as a ditch for public announcement of land substitution conducted by a land readjustment project, the land substitution in the land substitution plan shall not be determined.

Article 53 of the Land Readjustment Projects Act, Article 10 of the Regulations on the Implementation of Land Partition Adjustment for the Land Partition Planning Project

Kim Jong-hee

Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 67Na2929 delivered on October 10, 1970, Seoul High Court Decision 67Na2929 delivered on October 10, 1970

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Plaintiff 1’s ground of appeal No. 1

The order of planning of the shipbuilding land in which the original judgment was enforced at the time of the execution of the land readjustment project.

According to Article 10 of the Regulations on the Implementation of Land Partition Adjustment for Scenic Zone Project, which was enacted on March 16, 1939, the land donated for public ditches is not to be given land substitution (Article 53(2) of the current Land Partition Project Act; hereinafter the same shall apply). The land of this case, which was a ditch at the time, is not designated as land substitution in accordance with Article 10 of the above Enforcement Rule, when designating land substitution in the above land rearrangement execution zone, as prescribed in Article 10 of the above Enforcement Rule, after completing construction work on December 31, 1963 after the defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City continuously implemented the above land rearrangement project, and announced land substitution before September 30, 1964 through a land substitution disposition was publicly announced on September 30, 1964, and the land of this case was newly constructed Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan City and its ownership could not be designated and paid to the previous land of this case without any error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the land of this case.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed without merit. The costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by all participating judges.

Justices Cho Gi-chul (Presiding Justice)