Part of the land before replotting and part of the claim for registration of transfer of specific land after replotting

Unless there exist special circumstances, since the forest land category, land register, shape, etc. has changed due to replotting, the purchaser cannot file a request for the registration of transfer of the specific land in its part because it cannot be deemed that the specific forest land portion prior to replotting was specified in the same shape and location as the land register reduced at the prescribed reduction rate only after replotting.

Articles 61 and 62 of the Land Readjustment Projects Act

Supreme Court Decision 71Da2189 delivered on September 26, 1972 (Supreme Court Decision 203No30 delivered on September 26, 197)

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and two others

Busan District Court (78 Gohap1080)

The appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

피고들은 원고에게 부산 북구 괘법동 272의 3 대 238평 1홉중 별지 제3도면표시 (ㅂ')(ㅌ)(ㅋ)(ㅎ)(ㄱ')(ㅁ)(ㄹ)(ㅁ')(ㄷ)(ㄴ)(ㅂ')의 각 점을 순차 연결한 선내부분 20평 15홉에 대하여 이사건 솟장부본 송달일자 신탁해지를 원인으로 한 소유권이전등기절차를 이행하라.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendants in the first and second instances.

The plaintiff asserted as the cause of the plaintiff's claim. The plaintiff had no specific land category of the above 1-5 percent and no specific land category of the above 1-5 percent of the land owned by the non-party 1-2-3-3-2-3-14-2-3-14-2-dong Busan, Busan, Busan, 1965. The plaintiff had no specific land category of the 1-5-3-2-3-2-3-14-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-1-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-1-7-7-7-7-1-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-1-7-7-7-1-7-7-7-77-77-7-77-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants for the registration of transfer of co-ownership based on the previous land due to the termination of the above trust and the cadastral precedents of the above specific purchased part of the above specific purchase part is asserted (in this case, it is clear that the plaintiff does not intend to do so within the scope of the claim), and the plaintiff's claim for the execution of the registration of transfer as to the specific part of the claim stated in the substitute land is without merit, and therefore, it is without merit.

Therefore, since the original judgment that shares the same conclusion is justifiable, the appeal is dismissed pursuant to Article 384 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges fixed ticket (Presiding Judge) Mobile Engines