Legal relations in cases where the above expropriation has been partially invalidated after the designation of a housing site development zone under the Housing Site Development Promotion Act and the replotting has been made by the Korea Land Development Corporation and a third party has been sold to the next party;

When the Korea Land Development Corporation implements a housing site development project under the Housing Site Development Promotion Act, it expropriates a private land in a development district and parcels out it to another four lots. If one half of the proceeds from the expropriation of the land is not deposited in the future of the original owner and the expropriation of the land corresponding to that part becomes null and void retroactively at the time of expropriation, it is reasonable to deem that the original owner is the one half of the shares of the ownership of each land purchased by substitute lot, and there is no ground to view that there is no effect to deem that the identity naturally disappeared due to the housing site development between the land before and after the implementation of the housing site development project, or that there is no effect to regard the land before and after the

Articles 9(4), 12, and 18 of the Housing Site Development Promotion Act

Plaintiff

Korea Land Development Corporation and eight others, Defendants et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee and one other, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellee)

Seoul High Court Decision 93Na31384 delivered on February 2, 1994

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

The Defendants’ legal representatives’ grounds of appeal are examined.

As determined by the first instance judgment as cited by the lower court, if Defendant Korea Land Development Corporation expropriateds the Plaintiff’s land in the development zone and sells it to other Defendants. A half of the purchase price of the above land was not deposited in the Plaintiff’s future, and the expropriation of the above land equivalent to that part becomes null and void retroactively at the time of expropriation, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff exists the share of one half of the ownership of each land as the above substitute land and sold to the Defendants, and there is no ground to deem that there is no validity between the land before and after the implementation of the housing site development project as a matter of course due to the housing site development project, between the land before and after the implementation of the housing site development project, or between the land after the implementation of the said substitute land and the land before and after the said substitute land.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to replotting under the housing site development project, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, all appeals are 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 on the bench.

Justices Cho Chang-tae (Presiding Justice)