Whether a land readjustment project operator is liable for damages in case where a land readjustment project operator incorporates the land into a road site without granting liquidation money for the reason that it is actually used as a road site.

Even if it was actually used as a road site prior to the implementation of a land readjustment project, the land owner is not provided by himself/herself, but if the project operator does not pay the land substitution but does not pay the liquidation money and has lost the ownership of the land as a public announcement of land substitution disposition, it should be held liable for tort.

Article 62 of the Land Readjustment Projects Act, Article 750 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 74Da1825 delivered on May 13, 1975

For the purpose of this Act:

Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul Civil District Court (73Gahap4119) in the first instance trial (73Gahap419)

Supreme Court Decision 74Da1825 delivered on May 13, 1975

(1) As a result of the exchange change of the Plaintiff’s claim, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 456,00 and the amount at the rate of five percent per annum from November 9, 1973 to the date of full payment.

(2) The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

(3) The plaintiff shall pay to the defendant 14,223,986 won with an annual interest rate of 5 percent from October 30, 1974 to the full payment date.

(4) 1/20 of the total litigation cost is borne by the defendant and the remainder.

(5) Paragraph (3) may be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 14,425,148 won with an annual interest rate of 5 percent from November 9, 1973 to the date of full payment.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and a declaration of provisional execution.

The judgment of the court below shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

The total costs of litigation shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff shall apply for the return of provisional execution to the defendant for the payment of the amount of 14,679,986 won and the amount at the rate of 5 percent per annum from October 30, 1974 to the full payment.

Since the 152-2 road of Seodaemun-gu, Seoul and 144-2 was owned by the plaintiff, the defendant obtained an approval for the implementation of the land readjustment project on December 26, 1967, including the above land, from the 8th public announcement of the construction schedule on January 21, 1967, to implement the project, such as conducting financial disposal of the land scheduled for substitution on December 26, 1967 after obtaining an approval for the implementation of the land readjustment project on December 26, 1967, the above land is excluded from the land subject to replotting on the ground that it was actually used as a road site, and the liquidation money is not granted, and it is not a dispute between the parties.

Therefore, even if the above land was actually used as a road site before the implementation of the above project, it is not the plaintiff's own provision of the above land to the land readjustment project, and it is illegal for the defendant, who is the project executor, to proceed with the project without designating the land substitution and not paying the liquidation money, and to lose the plaintiff's ownership in the above land through the public announcement of the land substitution disposition. Therefore, the defendant is liable to compensate

Therefore, as to the damages, the scope of the above damages is limited to the liquidation amount expected to be paid at the time when the liquidation amount is to be paid for the above land, and the damages per rent should not be separately claimed. If the above purport is combined with the whole purport of the pleading as a result of the appraisal conducted by the appraiser Lee 3, 1974 on April 30, 1974, without any dispute over the establishment, the liquidation amount of the above land can be recognized as having been equivalent to 3,00 won per deliberation as well as the liquidation amount of the neighboring land at the time when the land substitution plan was approved, and the testimony of Eul 2 and the testimony of the witness Park Jong-young, contrary to the above recognition, is not believed and there is no counter-proof.

The defendant's legal representative's damage claim arising from the above illegal act occurred on December 26, 1967, which was the date of the above disposition of the designation of the land scheduled for substitution, and the extinctive prescription was completed on December 26, 1970, which was 3 years thereafter, and thereafter, the plaintiff's claim filed on August 20, 1973 was unjustifiable, and the above illegal act is established when the plaintiff was finally deprived of the ownership of the above land due to the public notice of the land scheduled for substitution. Thus, the above assertion other than the defendant's legal representative is groundless.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount of 456,00 won and the amount equivalent to five percent per annum from November 9, 1973 to the date of full payment. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the scope of the above claim, and the remainder of the claim is dismissed, and the decision of the court below that concluded otherwise, which affected the decision of the court below, applied the amount of 2,280,000 won from the defendant on December 10, 1973 to 7,359,320 won on October 28, 1974 and the amount of 2,60,60,000 won on October 29, 2974 to the defendant for provisional execution within the limit of 94,660,679,986 won on the above provisional execution. Thus, since there is no dispute between the parties to the above claim and the above provisional execution, the plaintiff's claim shall be paid the amount of 9,3005,4106,297,296,2000 won.

Judges An associate (Presiding Judge)