Status of a person who acquires ownership during the project implementation period without taking procedures for succession of rights and duties under Article 79 of the Land Readjustment Projects Act;

Even if a person acquires a new right (ownership) to the land without taking procedures for the succession of rights and duties as provided in Article 79 of the Land Readjustment Projects Act during the period in which the project under the Land Readjustment Projects Act is being implemented, there is no obstacle to the right to claim damages equivalent to the liquidation money of the land.

Article 79 of the Land Partition Project Adjustment Act

Plaintiff

Busan City

Busan District Court (74 Gohap711)

Supreme Court Decision 76Da2274 Delivered on April 26, 1977

The original judgment shall be modified as follows:

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 2,808,000 won with 5% interest per annum from June 13, 1974 to the day of full payment.

The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

The total cost of a lawsuit shall be divided into two minutes, one of which shall be the plaintiff and the other shall be borne by the defendant respectively.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 11,340,000 won with an annual rate of 5 percent from the day following the service to the day after the completion of the service.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant and the declaration of provisional execution

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

(1) According to Gap evidence No. 1 without dispute in its formation, it can be recognized that the ownership transfer registration has been made under the plaintiff's name on February 4, 1974 with respect to the first half order of May 5, 195, Busan trigram Law, Busan 5-5 (hereinafter referred to as the "land in this case"). The land in this case is presumed to be owned by the plaintiff, and the defendant obtained an approval for the land readjustment project for the Busan trigram District, including the land in this case on November 29, 1968, and implements the project after obtaining an approval for the land readjustment project for the Busan trigram, which was conducted on the ground that the land in this case was actually provided for public use as a road site. The land in this case was designated a substitute land or the liquidation money was implemented on March 6, 1974 and the land in this case was completed and the land substitution disposition was publicly announced at the same time. Thus, there is no dispute between the parties.

Therefore, even if the land in this case was actually a road before the implementation of the above project, if the owner does not designate a substitute lot for the land in this case, barring special circumstances such as providing it free of charge, the defendant shall pay the liquidation money, and the defendant shall conduct a substitute lot plan without setting it, and the plaintiff's ownership was lost through a final public announcement of a replotting disposition, so the defendant illegally implemented the above land readjustment project, and therefore the defendant shall be liable for compensation for the damages suffered by the plaintiff.

(2) (A) The Defendant, even before the execution of the above project, was actually a road, did not issue a land substitution designation or liquidation money pursuant to Article 53 (2) of the Land Readjustment Project Act, and made it available for public perusal, the former owner of the land in this case waived his right to claim this case during the public inspection period under Article 33 of the Act on Land Readjustment and Rearrangement Projects, and the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of this case for the purpose of bringing a lawsuit in this case. The Plaintiff asserted that the acquisition of ownership of this case constitutes Article 7 of the Trust Act, which is null and void. Thus, even if the owner of this case did not submit his written opinion on the above project plan, it cannot be deemed as an expression of intent to provide this case to the Defendant free of charge, or the Plaintiff’s right to claim damages due to the land readjustment project, which was illegally implemented, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff’s purchase of this case was extinguished for the purpose of filing a lawsuit in this case. Therefore, the above Defendant’s defense is groundless.

(B) In addition, since the liquidation money under the Land Readjustment Projects Act belongs to the legal relationship under public law between the project operator and the landowner at the time when the project is authorized, the plaintiff who acquired ownership during the project implementation period is required to take the procedure of succession to the rights and obligations pursuant to Article 79 of the same Act, and the plaintiff did not take this procedure, and therefore there is no right to claim damages on the settlement money, but it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff lost his right to claim damages on the ground that the plaintiff did not report the change of rights under Article 79 of the same Act

(3) The amount of damages suffered by the Plaintiff due to the above unlawful act by the Defendant is the amount equivalent to the settlement amount anticipated when the Defendant assumed to pay the settlement amount for the land of this case. However, in the implementation of the above land readjustment project, if the Defendant determines the settlement amount, it is clear that the settlement amount for the land of this case is calculated under the above law by comprehensively taking into account the location, land category, land category, soil, irrigation conditions, environment, and other matters of the previous land, but it is not in practice, but in the same proportion as the neighboring land. The average settlement rate for the land of this case was 35 percent, and the settlement amount for the area of right was set at 12,00 won per square day as the neighboring land was determined. The fact that there was no dispute between the parties, it is clear that the settlement amount for the land of this case is 2,808,000 won (360 x 360 x 12.00 won) x 12.00 won.

(4) Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the above-mentioned amount of KRW 2,808,00 and the damages for delay in civil affairs at the rate of 5% per annum from June 13, 1974 to the time of full payment, which is obvious from June 13, 1974, on the records, that the delivery day of this case gushe is the day after the delivery day, as the plaintiff seeks. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for this case is justified within the scope recognized above, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed as without merit. Thus, since the original judgment has partially concluded, it is modified, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the application of Articles 96, 89, and 92 of the Civil Procedure Act with respect to

Judges Park Jae-sik (Presiding Judge) Kim Hun-Un