A. If the sum of disposed shares exceeds 1, the defendant cannot be deemed to have left over the share of the real estate in question, and the procedure for the registration of transfer of shares cannot be ordered to that person.

B. Even if part of the land was specified and purchased before replotting, it cannot be deemed that it was naturally identified as the cadastral form of the relevant part of the land even after replotting, unless there are special circumstances.

A. If the sum of the shares disposed of by the defendant exceeds 1, the defendant cannot be deemed to have left over the share of the pertinent real estate, and it cannot be ordered to transfer the share to that person.

B. Even if part of the land was purchased by specifying and specifying before replotting, it cannot be deemed that it was naturally identified as the land portion as it is, even after replotting, in the absence of special circumstances.

Article 262 of the Civil Act, Article 48 of the Land Readjustment Projects Act

Plaintiff

Republic of Korea and one other

Seoul High Court Decision 71Na234 delivered on October 29, 1971, Seoul High Court Decision 71Na234 delivered on October 29, 1971

The part against the defendant 2 regarding the part against the defendant in the original judgment and the part against the defendant 2 on the attached drawings (C) shall be reversed, and the case on this part shall be remanded to the Seoul High

Defendant 2’s remaining appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal as to this part are assessed against the defendant.

Each of the grounds of appeal by Defendant Republic of Korea Litigation Performers and Defendant 2 Litigation Attorneys are examined.

The original judgment recognized that the Plaintiff’s share on the land of this case under the evidence Nos. 11-2-1, 15-1, 19.5/187-8 of the evidence No. 11-2-1, and that the Plaintiff’s share on the registration of the land of this case shall be the Plaintiff’s share on the 49.97/187.8, Defendant Republic of Korea, 6/187.8, Nonparty 1, 27/187.8, Nonparty 3/187.53/187.8, Nonparty 4, 187.3/187.3/187.8, Nonparty 6, 12/187.8 of the Plaintiff’s share on the 13.3/187.8 of the 1987.87.87.87. The lower court should have determined that the Plaintiff’s share in this case’s land of this case should have been disposed of more than the Plaintiff’s share on the ground of this case’s ownership of this case.

The second ground of appeal is examined.

However, the judgment of the court below, which held that the plaintiff's purchase of the part (A) (B) cannot change the effect of the purchase of the other part (C) regardless of the land's purchase of the part (C) and the other part (B) cannot change the effect of the purchase of the land regardless of the land's purchase of another part (C). The part (C) is originally included in the part (14) of 14-5 square meters of the land and 187 square meters of the land, which was originally included in the 79-8bbbbebbes of the land. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the error of the court below did not affect the conclusion of the judgment. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the plaintiff purchased 19.5 square meters of the land, including (a) (c) part (D) part before division and the land's purchase of the land, and the land's purchase of the land is not affected by the change of the entire land's land's size and shape, even after the land's purchase of the land.

The appeal on this point is reasonable, and the part against Defendant 2 regarding the theory of lawsuit among the original judgment against Defendant 2 is reversed, and the case on this part is remanded to the Seoul High Court. According to the evidence set out in the original judgment, the plaintiff does not recognize not only the theory (Ga) but also the 19th 5th son's purchase point of the site including (Da) (Da) (D) before replotting as shown in the original judgment, and if the plaintiff can confirm that part of the land in the dispute of this case was acquired, it is not necessary to determine the part owned by the defendants. As Defendant 2 or Korea, there is no interest in asserting that part of the non-party 5's share was transferred to another person, and the attached drawing (Ga) (Ga) (D) (Ga) (D) is not a land subject to replotting, and the plaintiff's usual rate should be calculated with only 5th 1bbbbbbbebbe and only excluding (Ga) (Ga) (D) and therefore, it cannot be discussed in the court below's reasoning for finding facts.

The grounds of appeal No. 3 are examined.

However, land substitution can be conducted for a part of a lot of land, and the division is conducted at the convenience of the enforcement authority. The plaintiff's purchase is 14-6 (11-4) part of the 14-6 (14) part of the 14-6 (14-6 part after the land substitution) and the purchase location of the plaintiff is not divided or indicated in the cadastral map, but the plaintiff's purchase area is not divided or indicated in the administrative authority (Seoul Special Metropolitan City) and there is no ground to see it as the limit of the plaintiff's purchase area, and there is no ground to see it in the record, and it is narrow compared to the part outside the same district of the 14-6 (c) part of the 14-6 (c) part after the land substitution is not possible. Therefore, the appeal can not be raised against the rules of evidence.

Accordingly, the remaining appeals by Defendant 2 are dismissed without merit. The costs of the appeal as to this part are assessed against the defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Supreme Court Judge Hongnam-gu (Presiding Judge)