Where land is consolidated by confirmation of land substitution after being scheduled and sold as land secured by the authorities in recompense for development outlay in a land substitution plan, the status of each purchaser of the previous land

If two parcels of land are scheduled to be the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay and sold to two persons, even if the above parcels of land were to be combined with the land of one parcel by the determination of a replotting disposition, since the land of one parcel of land cannot be deemed to be the land substitution as designated in lieu of the above two parcels of land, the purchaser of each piece of

Article 54 (1) of the Land Readjustment Projects Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant-Appellee, Attorney Park Jong-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 76Na1068 delivered on April 21, 1977

The original judgment shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to Seoul Civil Procedure District Court Panel Division.

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

1. The court below held that the land of this case was sold to the non-party on June 30, 1965. The non-party, who again sold the land of this case to the plaintiff on November 1, 1966. On the other hand, the non-party sold the land of this case to the defendant on October 16, 196. The non-party sold the land of this case to the non-party on October 16, 196, and the land of this case to the defendant on October 16, 196. The non-party sold the land of this case to the non-party of this case to the non-party of this case and the land of this case to the non-party of this case should be registered as co-owners by reducing the purchase area of the land of this case and to share the land of this case to the plaintiff and the defendant as co-owners on July 2, 47 of the same district, and the land of this case to the non-party of this case.

2. In a case where the purchase and sale contract for each parcel of land originally owned by the same owner is legally designated as a substitute lot with one parcel of land, it is reasonable that the purchase and sale contract for each parcel of land previously owned is implemented as a substitute lot with one parcel of land designated as one parcel of land, in response to all the value-added clauses, which correspond to the standards for the substitution substitution of the previous parcel of land subject to each sale and purchase, barring any special circumstance. Thus, in a case where a purchase and sale contract for each purchaser with respect to the previous parcel of land whose substitute lot is designated as one parcel of land has been concluded, the trade effect shall be deemed to be a substitute lot for the previous parcel of land, the purchase and sale purpose of which is to accord with the ratio corresponding to each of the previous parcels of land, which become the object of each sale and purchase, and shares in proportion

However, according to the purport of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that both the land of this case and the land of this case 1 and 2 were scheduled as the land secured by the land secured by the development recompense for development outlay, and the land of this case and the land of this case 1 and 2 were 18-3 Hobbbbbbes in Seoul, Dongdaemun-gu (location omitted), and judged that the land of this case 18-3bbebbes in the above 18-3bbes is the land substitution, and on the premise that the land of this case is the land substitution, and the plaintiff and the defendant shared the above land according to the reasonable ratio of the land size purchased. According to the provisions of Article 54 (1) of the Land Readjustment and Rearrangement Projects Act, if the land of this case is determined as the land substitution in the land substitution plan, the land of this case will not be determined as the land substitution, and even if the land was sold as one of the above 18-pabbebbes in accordance with the completion of the land substitution project at the termination site.

If so, the court below did not clearly state its reasons and did not have any defects that recognized this land as co-ownership with the plaintiff and the defendant, so there is a good reason to discuss the appeal that points out this point.

Therefore, under Articles 400 and 406(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, the original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Civil Procedure District Court which is the original judgment. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Min Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)