The amount of damages in case of loss of ownership by public announcement of replotting disposition without designating replotting or taking any measure of monetary liquidation.

Damage caused by the loss of ownership of the land in this case due to the execution of a land readjustment project conducted by the public announcement of a land substitution plan without the designation of land substitution or a measure of monetary liquidation is the situation in which the ownership is lost, i.e., the development gains, which are the increased value by the execution of the land readjustment project, were deducted, and the land was actually used as a road site. It is reasonable to be the value equivalent to the road site. However, since the land in this case is lost the plaintiffs' ownership due to the execution of the land readjustment project, it cannot exceed the scope of settlement money anticipated when the settlement money is to be paid for the

Article 53 of the Land Readjustment Projects Act (Law No. 1822), Article 763 of the Civil Act, Article 393 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 74Da1548 delivered on April 22, 1975

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Busan City

Busan District Court (74Gahap1845)

The appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant shall pay 1,691,280 won to the plaintiff 1, 814,320 won to the plaintiff 2, and 5% interest per annum from September 4, 1974 to the date of full payment.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and a declaration of provisional execution.

The judgment of the court below is revoked. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Judgment on the main defense of this case

The defendant filed an application for the payment of compensation with the Busan District Compensation Council on June 16, 1975, and the plaintiff 1 was dismissed on December 19 of the same year, and the decision of compensation was not made with respect to the plaintiff 2 until three months has passed since the plaintiff 2 did not go through the procedure of the pre-determination under Article 9 of the State Compensation Act, and therefore, the safety defense of the defendant is unlawful. Thus, even if the plaintiffs did not go through the pre-determination procedure prior to the filing of the lawsuit, the defects were cured as long as they gone through the procedure after the filing of the lawsuit, so the defendant's defense of this case is not justified.

2. Judgment on the merits

According to each entry of Gap evidence 1-1 to 13 (each copy of register) in the Busan East-dong, Busan-dong, the road of 108, the road of 108, and the road of 5, and 47, such as (number 2 omitted), the road of 108, the Dong-dong, Busan-dong (number 1 omitted), and the road of 47, such as (number 2 omitted) the road of 5, the same (number 3 omitted), are recognized to have completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of plaintiff 2, and the land of 1, including the above land, including the above land, was implemented with the approval of the Minister of Construction and Transportation on November 6, 1968 for the land readjustment and rearrangement project with the approval of the project implementation of the Minister of Construction and Transportation on November 6, 1968, on the ground that the above land has been actually used as a road site, the above land shall be implemented by applying the latter part of Article 52 (2) of the Land Readjustment and Rearrangement Projects Act, thereby excluding any substitute land or liquidation project.

The plaintiffs claim for the compensation of losses from the loss of ownership against the above land, but the land readjustment project implementer did not designate the land substitution to the actual base owner of the road, and the decision not to pay the liquidation money also has the nature of a fair administrative disposition. Thus, this disposition shall bind the court unless it is revoked by a legitimate administrative litigation procedure. This disposition shall bind the court, and the court under such order cannot order the payment of liquidation money in opposition to the contents of the administrative disposition, and the parties cannot seek the payment of liquidation money. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for compensation of losses is groundless.

Then, unless there are special circumstances, such as that the plaintiffs who are owners of the above land provide the land free of charge, the defendant, a project implementer, did not designate the substitute land for this case's land, and the project implementer lost the plaintiffs' ownership through the final public notice of the disposition of replotting, so the defendant is liable for compensation for damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the above tort. The defendant's notification of receipt to the plaintiffs by setting the liquidation amount for the above land after the public notice of the disposition of replotting was made on December 15, 1975. The fact that the defendant notified the above land to the plaintiffs by setting the liquidation amount for the above land is recognized by the statement of No. 8-1 and No. 2, but the liquidation amount for the above land under Article 62 (5) of the Land Readjustment and Rearrangement Projects Act is determined on the following day after the public notice of the disposition of replotting was made, and the project implementer under Article 68 of the same Act should not be exempted from the liability for the above change of the disposition of replotting after the public notice of the disposition of replotting.

Although the defendant established a land substitution plan to not designate land substitution or settle money in accordance with the latter part of Article 53 (2) of the Land Readjustment Projects Act, the plaintiffs did not present their opinions during the period of Article 33 of the above Act, so even though the plaintiffs did not waive ownership of the land in this case, it is argued that the claim is in violation of the principle of gold-competing. Thus, the public inspection procedure under Article 33 of the above Act is merely to give the interested parties the opportunity to present their opinions, and it is merely to give them the opportunity to present their opinions, and it cannot be said that the plaintiffs' damages claim due to the implementation of the above Act of the Land Readjustment Projects has expired because the family owner did not raise any objection.

Furthermore, as to the amount of damages, it is reasonable that the damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the plaintiffs' loss of ownership of the transferred land due to the execution of the land readjustment project by the defendant, barring any special circumstance, the development gains, which is the price increased by the execution of the land readjustment project, at the time of September 4, 1974, should be deducted from the market price of the above land as of September 4, 1974, and the development gains, which is the value increased by the execution of the land readjustment project, are actually being used as the road site, and the land is actually used as the road site. However, since the land in this case is lost the plaintiffs' ownership due to the execution of the land readjustment project

However, there is no dispute between the parties that the common share ratio due to the replotting of the land subject to replotting in the above charging district is 32 percent. In full view of the result of the on-site verification by the court below, and the testimony by Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2, the witness at the court below and Nonparty 2 at the court below witness at the time of September 4, 1974, the market price of the land at the time of September 3, 1974 is 19,500 won per square year in consideration of its location, environment, land category, etc. The price of the land at this point is 13,260 won per square year (=19,50 x 1-0 x 32) if the development gains, which is the value raised due to the execution of the defendant's land readjustment and rearrangement project, are deducted, and there is no counter-proof, so that the plaintiff's ownership of the land at this point is lost + the amount owned by the plaintiff 1,1308,260 won [38,25 won]

Next, if it is assumed that the settlement money is to be paid for this parcel of land, the estimated settlement money shall be the amount obtained by winning the appraised unit price of land after the reorganization is adjusted to the area of the right, and it is reasonable to view that the assessed unit price of land after reorganization is an amount equivalent to the market price at the time of the next public notice of the reorganization project, barring any other circumstances, and eventually, it is clear that the settlement money expected for this parcel of land will be calculated by adding the amount of land owned by the plaintiff 1 to 1,432,080 (=19,500 x 108 x 108 x 32).

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 1,432,080 won, 689,520 won per annum from September 4, 1974 to the date of full payment, and damages for delay in civil law by the rate of 5% per annum from September 4, 1974 to the date of full payment. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for this case is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining amount is without merit. Thus, the judgment of the court below shall be dismissed for the plaintiff 1, which is less than the above amount, and 682,50 won per annum from September 4, 1974 to the date of full payment, and 5% per annum from September 4, 1974 to the date of the plaintiff 2 who is the land value at the time of the plaintiff's loss, and since the remaining claim was rejected, only the defendant's appeal can not be affected to the defendant, the defendant's appeal shall be dismissed by applying Article 384 of the Civil Procedure Act to the defendant's appeal.

Judges Lee Jong-dae (Presiding Judge)