Where a person who has a right to a building, etc. in a project implementation district fails to report a change in rights pursuant to Article 79 of the Land Readjustment and Rearrangement Projects Act, the effect of disposition on the previous right holder.

If there is a change in the person who has the right to the building, etc. in the project execution district under Article 79 of the Land Readjustment and Rearrangement Projects Act, the effect of the change in the right due to the execution of the project shall not be asserted or the disposition against the previous owner shall not be denied unless the operator reports it

Articles 79, 40, and 41 of the Land Readjustment Projects Act

Plaintiff’s Attorney Han-soo

Busan District Court Decision 200Do1448 delivered on August 1, 200

Daegu High Court Decision 73Na568 delivered on November 20, 1973

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal by the plaintiff's attorney are examined.

Article 40 and Article 41 of the Land Readjustment Projects Act provides that a project operator shall compensate for losses incurred by the relocation of obstacles, such as building structures in the implementation district of the project, and that the compensation relationship shall be deemed as the legal relationship between the actual losses incurred by the relocation and the implementer, and that, as provided for in Article 79 of the same Act, if there is a change in the person holding the rights to the building, etc. in the implementation district of the project, unless it is reported to the implementer, it shall not be possible to assert the effect of the change in rights as to the disposition of the project implementation or to deny the disposition of the previous owner, unless it is reported to the implementer. In this case, the plaintiff did not report the change in rights due to the transfer of rights to the building and the land rearrangement project has been implemented more than before the plaintiff acquires the ownership of the building of the building of this case. At the time of the payment of compensation, it shall be deemed that the owner of the building of this case was the non-party who was the previous owner of the building and that the land was owned by the non-party, and that it cannot be determined by the non-party.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. The appeal is assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Yoon-Jeng (Presiding Justice)