A. Changes in facts due to new arguments after remand and binding force of the judgment of remand

B. Whether an agreement between the parties may establish a legal relationship for the realization of a specific administrative objective (affirmative)

C. The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that there was insufficient ground and incomplete hearing

A. When there is a change in the facts underlying the binding judgment of the court of final appeal as a result of a new submission or reinforcement of evidence by the parties’ assertion during the course of a trial after remanding the case from the court of final appeal, the binding force of the court of final appeal for the reasons for reversal shall not extend to the final judgment of the court of final appeal.

(b) Legal relations for the realization of specific administrative objectives may be established by an agreement between the parties, unless it is contrary to the legislation.

C. The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that there was insufficient ground and incomplete hearing

A. Article 406(2) of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 105(c) of the Civil Act; Articles 394 subparag. 6 and 183 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 79Da1264 delivered on December 27, 1980, 80Da1072 delivered on December 14, 1982, 80Da1073 delivered on November 8, 1983, 86Nu90 delivered on November 10, 1987

[Judgment of the court below]

Plaintiff Intervenor 1 and one other

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 85Na2065 delivered on August 28, 1987

The part of the judgment below against the defendant is reversed and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The plaintiff's above is dismissed.

The costs of appeal dismissed shall be assessed against the plaintiff.

1. As to the ground of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney

(1) When there is a change in the facts underlying the binding judgment of the court of final appeal as a result of a new submission or reinforcement of evidence by the party's assertion during the course of a trial after remanding the case from the court of final appeal, the binding force of the court of final appeal to render a judgment by law as the grounds for reversal (see Supreme Court Decision 79Da1264 delivered on October 27, 1980; Supreme Court Decision 80Da1072 delivered on December 14, 1982).

After the Defendant entrusted the registration of restriction on disposal rights to the land indicated in the [Attachment 1-1] and 1-2 list of the original judgment pursuant to paragraph (4) of this case, the Plaintiff did not wait until the establishment of a military air harbor plan and urban planning stipulated in paragraph (4) of the above authorization terms and conditions and immediately cancelled the restriction on disposal rights to reclaimed land. On November 14, 1972, the Ministry of Construction and Transportation decided that the land for public use should be nationalized in accordance with the present plan of the State, and that the remaining land should be removed from the above entrusted registration. According to the above provision of Paragraph 4 of this case, the lower court’s determination that the land should be removed under the previous provision of Paragraph 1 of Article 1-1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Settlement of Land, which was not known to the State at the time and on March 13, 1973, which was not known to the lower court to the effect that it would be necessary for the State to allocate the above new land to the State, and that the remaining land should be removed under the previous provision of the Presidential Decree 3-171.

(2) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the above disposition of the plaintiff's entry into the 13th unit of the 3th unit of the 13th unit of the 13th unit of the 3th unit of the 3th unit of the 3th unit of the 1962 unit of the 3th unit of the 3th unit of the 3th unit of the 1967 unit of the 1st unit of the 3th unit of the 1967 unit of the 3th unit of the 196th unit of the 1st unit of the 3th unit of the 196th unit of the 1st unit of the 3th unit of the 196th unit of the 1st unit of the 3th unit of the 3th unit of the 1st unit of the 1967 unit of the 1st unit of the 3th unit of the 1st unit of the 3th unit of the 1st unit of the 1st unit of the 1st unit of the public waters.

The above fact-finding by the court below is acceptable, and it cannot be said that there is any misunderstanding of the contents of the declaration of intention indicated in No. 2, such as the theory of litigation, or in the process.

The legal relations for realizing specific administrative purposes can be established by an agreement between the parties unless there is a violation of the statutes. As such, the reversion of the land established by an agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant to the state in question is conclusive regardless of whether it conflicts with the Gunsan Port Plan and the urban planning to be determined later. In particular, it is true in light of the fact that part of the land, among reclaimed land, which is anticipated to be used for official or public purposes among the land, belongs to the State, has been ordered to be able to exercise ownership without any restriction by cancelling a commission registration on the conditions such as restrictions on the right to dispose of the land, and that part of the land, which belongs to the plaintiff upon cancellation of the entrustment registration, has been purchased again by the defendant through a final and conclusive urban planning that later purchased the necessary part of the land as a public site by the defendant. It cannot be said that there is no error in the judgment of the court below that the contents and legal nature of the State reversion disposition, or the legal principles on the reversion

2. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant Litigation Performers

The court below found the following facts based on the facts without dispute and adopted evidence. The plaintiff applied for a reclamation license of public waters for the purpose of creation of farmland at 74 5 m2, 74 m2, 74 m2, 70 m2, 1966 on February 17, 196, and completed the reclamation license of the public waters from the Minister of Construction and Transportation on January 31, 196, and obtained authorization for completion of the reclamation work from 213,28 m28 m28 m2. Paragraph 4 of Article 4 of the terms of the authorization for completion of the reclamation. In other words, "the conflicting part shall be nationalized, on condition that the registration of ownership and other disposal rights of the former reclaimed area shall be entrusted to the head of Gun/Dong and the non-party, and the land number at that time shall be 7 m2, 197 m2, 27 m2, 3 m2, 3 omitted) attached to the judgment below's attached list 97.

Furthermore, examining the contents of Paragraph (6) of the above Public Waters Reclamation License Conditions and Paragraph (4) of the above conditions of completion authorization of reclamation works, the court below determined that the restriction on ownership and other disposal rights to the previous reclaimed land is illegal because it is interpreted that the restriction on ownership and other disposal rights to the previous reclaimed land does not conflict with the above plan in a case where urban planning is finalized, and that it is in conflict with the above license or authorization conditions of urban planning facilities for public or public purposes. Thus, it cannot be viewed that the harbor district under the Urban Planning Act is related to the city planning room for public or public purposes. Thus, the right to rescind the restriction on disposal rights was fulfilled because the above land was designated as a harbor district by the determination of urban planning, etc., and therefore, the defendant is obligated to perform the procedure for cancellation registration of the entrustment registration on the disposal rights restriction, and the defendant does not prove the legitimate title of possession of the above land, and thus, the defendant's possession is illegal.

As determined by the court below, the phrase "the part that is in conflict with it after the final determination of the plan and urban planning, etc." under Paragraph (4) of the above conditions for the authorization of the completion of the construction set out as the area belonging to the State refers to the part that becomes the site for the urban planning facilities and port facilities, which are public or public purposes, for the plan and urban planning to be determined later. In light of the provisions of Article 2 Paragraph (1) Item 1, Article 18 Paragraph (1) Item 7, Article 19 Paragraph (1) of the Urban Planning Act, Article 74 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act, and Article 74 of the Building Act, the fact that the land was designated as a port area in accordance with the urban planning cannot be determined immediately as the site for the urban planning facilities and port facilities, which are public or public purposes, because the defendant asserted that the land in the annexed list No. 4 of the judgment of the court below was the site for the land subject to nationalization, which is the land subject to the installation of the urban planning facilities or port facilities under Paragraph (2) Item (c) of the Urban Planning Act.

According to the records, the above land ( Address 4 omitted) is determined as a site for a 25-meter road in width under the finalized military air route plan and urban planning plan (No. 14-3, 4, and No. 18-2). A part of the above land can be seen as a warehouse site of the Gunsan Regional Transportation and Port Authority (the result of the on-site inspection by the first instance court), and there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the above land is incorporated into a military harbor site in accordance with the urban planning that has become final and conclusive (the 7th pleading statement in the first instance court), and there is sufficient room to view it as a site for urban planning facilities or port facilities, which are the public or public use of urban planning facilities.

Therefore, the above land constitutes the land to be reverted to the State pursuant to Paragraph 6 and Paragraph 4 of the License Conditions of this case recognized by the court below, and therefore the defendant's possession is not illegal. The judgment of the court below shall not be relieved of the criticism that the court below committed an illegal act due to the lack of reason and the incomplete hearing, and it constitutes Article 12 Paragraph 2 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings. It is reasonable to discuss it.

Therefore, the part of the judgment below against the defendant is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the court below. The plaintiff's appeal is without merit, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)