(a) The legal relationship between the previous landowners with respect to the land issued through joint replotting;

(b) Where a joint ownership relationship comes into existence through a joint land substitution disposition, standards for determining equity ratios;

A. In the case of land partitioned and owned by Gap at the time of the public announcement of the land readjustment project, and the change of the owner Eul, Byung, and the definition, but it cannot be reflected in the land substitution disposition, Eul, Byung, and Jung, the actual owner of the previous land, Byung, and Jung, a joint substitute land, the substitute land shall be jointly owned according to the land substitution disposition, as well as Eul, Byung, and joint ownership, and the above acquisition of rights by these persons shall be granted to the land which was issued to the owner of the previous land by the determination of replotting, and therefore the contents of the right shall be governed by the land substitution disposition, regardless of its registration.

(b) If a co-ownership relationship is formed through a joint land substitution disposition, its share ratio shall not be based only on the cadastral point of the previous land, but shall be determined in consideration of various circumstances, such as the relationship between land substitution and the previous land, location, land category, light, degree of use, soil quality, environment, etc.

(b)Article 62 of the Land Readjustment Project Act;

Supreme Court Decision 71Da146 delivered on March 30, 1971, 71Da1365 Delivered on September 28, 1971

Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) Attorney private Dong-sik, Counsel for the plaintiff-Counterclaim defendant-appellant)

Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Young-he et al., Counsel for the defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff)

Seoul High Court Decision 87Na3500, 3501 Decided September 21, 198

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against each party.

The plaintiff's attorney's grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the non-party 1 was originally owned by the non-party 1 (number 1 omitted) and the non-party 1 (number 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, and 1-4 omitted). The land was divided into the non-party 1 (number 1-1 omitted) and the non-party 2 was the non-party 3's joint ownership of the land (number 1-3 omitted) as of the time when the land substitution was decided through the process of original adjudication. The plaintiff, the (number 1-2 omitted) and the non-party 4 were the non-party 2, the non-party 3, the non-party 3, and the non-party 4, the non-party 2, the non-party 4 and the non-party 2, the non-party 4 and the non-party 2, the non-party 4 and the non-party 2, the non-party 4 and the non-party 2, the non-party 1 and the non-party 2's joint ownership.

The plaintiff's attorney's ground of appeal No. 3 is examined.

The Defendant sold to a third party the above ○○ Dong (number 2 omitted), 137 to 2 Hobbebbes, which had been registered in its name due to the commission registration due to the confirmation of replotting, and the Defendant cannot be deemed to have recognized that the registration of ownership transfer was made in the Plaintiff’s name due to the commission registration due to the confirmation of replotting for ○○ Dong (number 3 omitted), ○○ Dong (number 3 omitted), 145 to 2 Hobbes, which was divided from the land of this case, the land of this case, which is the land of this case, ○○-dong (number 5 omitted), 17 to 2, which was the land of this case. Therefore, even if the lower court did not make a decision

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

(1) The lower court’s rejection of the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant had an explicit or implied agreement to transfer the ownership of the instant site to the Defendant, on the ground of the relation that the Defendant possessed a juju-si, ○○○-dong, ○○-dong, 17th 2th 2th 2th 17th Ga, a site of this case, and a 18th 7th Gau-dong, a 18th Gau, a 2nd 5th Gau, and a 18th Gau, a 2nd 5th Gau, a 18th Gau, a 2nd

(2) If the co-ownership relationship is formed through a joint land substitution disposition, the ratio of shares is not merely based on the cadastral point of the previous land, but rather based on the overall circumstances such as the relation between the land and the previous land, location, land category, light, degree of use, soil quality, environment, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 71Da146, Mar. 30, 1971; Supreme Court Decision 71Da1365, Sept. 28, 1971; Supreme Court Decision 71Da1365, Sept. 28, 1971). Unless there are circumstances such as the above, the defendant's co-ownership share in the land substituted by the former co-owner is equal to 47/100, barring special circumstances such as that there was a decision that the co-ownership ratio of the previous land is the co-ownership of 47/100 of the previous land. In this regard, the court below's rejection of the claim is justifiable and there is no error in violation of the rules of evidence or any violation of law.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Yong-dong (Presiding Justice)