Methods of calculating liquidation money under Article 52 of the Land Readjustment Projects Act;

Liquidation money prescribed in Article 52 of the Land Readjustment Act shall be individually and objectively calculated, taking into comprehensive account the location, category, area, soil, water quality, repair, utilization status, environment and all other matters of the previous land and substitute land as prescribed in the same Act, and the settlement money shall not be directly affected by any method of determining project costs in the land rearrangement project.

Article 52 of the Land Readjustment Projects Act

Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-ho

Attorney Park Jong-dae, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Daegu High Court Decision 82Gu156 delivered on May 22, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, in the execution of the land readjustment project of this case, the court below is just in examining the fact that the defendant made the execution ordinance under Article 32 (2) of the Land Readjustment Project Act and delivered the land substitution to a place close to the previous land in accordance with the implementation ordinance, and in case where the land substitution cannot be delivered in accordance with such principle, the land substitution was made at a location deemed equal to the previous land, and the amount of the land substitution right shall be calculated in accordance with the municipal ordinance, and the amount of the land substitution right shall be calculated after deducting the common depreciation rate, and the amount of the land substitution right shall be calculated by calculating the basic area and the amount of the common depreciation rate for it shall be calculated, and the settlement amount shall be calculated in excess of the appraisal price in accordance with the municipal ordinance, depending on the difference or difference between the actual land substitution area and the land substitution, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, and there is no error in the incomplete deliberation. The judgment below is justifiable in the same purport. The liquidation amount under Article 52 of the Land Readjustment Project Act shall not be calculated objectively.

Therefore, the court below's failure to deliberate and decide on the amount of the lawsuit project cost in determining the legitimacy of the disposition of this case shall not affect the judgment. There is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles, incomplete hearing, or omission of judgment, such as the theory of lawsuit. In the case of the land readjustment project of this case, where the project implementation authorization was obtained before December 31, 1975 and the land substitution confirmation notice was subsequently made thereafter, the land for public use shall be liquidated by taking a disposition of replotting as the assessment amount at the time of the project implementation authorization (see Article 2 (2) of the land readjustment project by Act No. 2848 of Dec. 31, 1975). Therefore, the court below's calculation of the liquidation amount based on the appraisal price at the time of the project implementation authorization of this case with respect to the land in this case, which was actually used as a road, and the disposition of this case is legitimate, and there is no error in the misapprehension

Therefore, the appeal is 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.

Justices Gangseo-young (Presiding Justice)