Where a share registration of the previous land has been made in response to the ratio of the area of the specific part to the total area of the land scheduled for substitution, the use and profit relationship of the above land scheduled for substitution.

If the specific portion on the land substitution is purchased and only the registration is made pursuant to the ratio of the area of the specific part to the whole area of the land substitution, it is reasonable to deem that an agreement was reached to recognize the right to use and benefit from the specific portion in the land substitution.

Article 57 of the Land Readjustment Projects Act

Korea Electric Power Corporation

Korea

Chuncheon District Court Decision 84Na74 delivered on May 31, 1984

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Chuncheon District Court Panel Division.

The ground of appeal No. 1 by the defendant litigation performer is examined.

In the reasoning of the judgment, the court below did not find any dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant as to the share of 215/1526 shares of the previous land before the designation of the land to be reserved for replotting was made on December 3, 1971, on the ground that the land was originally owned by the plaintiff and 893 square meters of the land to be reserved for replotting, which was executed with the approval of the Minister of Construction and Transportation on December 30, 1968, according to the land readjustment and rearrangement project implemented on December 30, 1968.

However, according to Gap evidence Nos. 1-1, 2 (Written Copy of each register of land scheduled for substitution) and Eul evidence Nos. 5-1, 2 (In light of the whole purport of pleadings, the non-party Ministry of National Defense under the defendant's control of the defendant was to purchase the above ( Address 1 omitted), 180 square meters out of 63 miscellaneous land and 35 square meters (No. 2 omitted) out of 893 square meters from the above (No. 1 omitted) miscellaneous land at 183 square meters out of the above (No. 2 omitted) at 1971, it was recognized that the non-party 1 was to purchase the previous land in accordance with the special measures for the adjustment of requisitioned property and that the registration was made on December 3, 1971 at the time of the purchase of the previous land scheduled for substitution for substitution for substitution for land, and that the plaintiff was to purchase the previous land at 1,000 square meters and 2, as part of the land scheduled for substitution for substitution for substitution for land at 3.

As can be seen, if only the specific portion on the land substitution is purchased and the registration is made on the previous land in response to the ratio of the area of the specific portion to the entire land substitution area, it is reasonable to view that there was an agreement that recognizes the right to use and benefit from the specific portion on the land substitution area based on the share amount, and therefore, there is no room for causing problems of unjust enrichment by occupying the specific portion on the land substitution area. However, the court below did not reach this point, which concluded that the defendant purchased the shares on the land of this case without reaching it, is against the rules of evidence, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the legal principles on the land substitution, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and it is reasonable to point this out.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Jong-sung (Presiding Justice)