Claim for damages caused by illegal land readjustment project execution and part of the procedure of transfer

In order to seek compensation for tort damages on the premise that a land readjustment project has been illegally implemented, two months shall have passed from the date of receiving the decision of the compensation deliberation committee under Article 9 of the State Compensation Act, or the application for compensation.

Article 9 of the State Compensation Act

Supreme Court Decision 74Da1548 delivered on April 22, 1975

Plaintiff

Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul Central District Court (73Gahap2135) in the first instance trial

Supreme Court Decision 73Da2005 Delivered on June 10, 1975

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All costs of litigation shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 43,540,00 won with 5 percent interest per annum from April 19, 1973 to the full payment day. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and a declaration of provisional execution.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. On January 21, 1967, the plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff should pay the liquidation money as compensation for the loss of ownership to the plaintiff who lost ownership of the land in this case, including 11 lots of land listed in the annexed Table (A) and (b) of the annexed Table (hereinafter in this case, after obtaining authorization from the Minister of Construction and Transportation for the execution of the land readjustment project, the implementer of the above project shall implement the land readjustment project and publicly announced the land readjustment project on April 17, 197, after completion of the above rearrangement project, the land in this case was used as a road in fact and was used as a road after the above project was completed, and the liquidation money shall not be paid without designating the land substitution under the latter part of Article 53 (2) of the Land Readjustment and Rearrangement Project Act. Thus, since the land readjustment project implementer is not obliged to pay the liquidation money without designating the land substitution to the actual base owner of the road, the plaintiff's disposition cannot be viewed as a compensation money or the compensation money in this case's administrative disposition without the above legal principles.

2. If the settlement money is not acknowledged as the above compensation for loss as a household, the plaintiff did not set the land substitution for the land in this case, and the plaintiff lost the entire value of the land in this case before the execution of the land readjustment project, and therefore, it is argued that the plaintiff is seeking the payment of depreciation compensation under Article 67 of the Land Readjustment Project Act corresponding to the total value of the land in this case. Therefore, in case where the settlement money is not paid without designating the land substitution under the latter part of Article 53 (2) of the Land Readjustment Project Act, the provision of depreciation compensation under Article 67 of the same Act is not applied, and the plaintiff's above assertion is groundless.

3. If the above compensation or depreciation compensation is not acknowledged, the plaintiff himself, the owner of the base which was actually used as a road, not to provide the land of this case free of charge. But if the defendant, the project implementer, did not designate the substitute land for this case, and did not pay a considerable amount of liquidation money or the compensation payment disposition, and caused losses to the plaintiff through the final public announcement of replotting disposition, the land readjustment project should be conducted illegally and thereby causing losses to the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant argued that the plaintiff should not pay the amount equivalent to the market price at the time when the land substitution decision as at the time the land substitution decision as at the time when the land substitution decision as to this case was made should be made as tort. Thus, the disposition that the land readjustment project implementer does not actually determine the substitute land to the base owner of the road without designating the substitute land has the nature of one fair administrative disposition. Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff did not have the above procedure for the plaintiff's compensation to the defendant on the premise that the land of this case was illegally implemented by the land readjustment project.

4. If so, the plaintiff's claim for objection shall be dismissed as it does not appear to have any reason, and the original judgment which has different conclusions is unfair and revoked, and the burden of litigation costs shall be determined as per Disposition by applying Articles 96 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation costs.

[Attachment Omission]

Judges Kim Jin-jin (Presiding Judge)