[1] In a case where a substitute lot is granted for a land which shall be liquidated by money pursuant to Article 126 (5) of the former Agricultural Community Modernization Promotion Act, whether a new liquidation by money may be conducted after the validity of a disposition of replotting (negative), and whether a disposition of replotting is void automatically (negative with qualification)

[2] In a case where a joint land substitution disposition is taken with the land owned by another person for the land to be liquidated with money pursuant to Article 126 (5) of the former Agricultural Community Modernization Promotion Act, the ownership of the previous owner's land substitution (=share of the proportion corresponding to the previous land)

[1] The replotting disposition, which takes place as part of the farmland improvement project under the former Agricultural Community Modernization Promotion Act (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the Farmland Improvement Cooperatives Act, Act No. 5077 of December 29, 195), is a kind of substitute land administrative act which designates another land with a parcel number newly attached after the completion of farmland rearrangement work on behalf of the previous land in the implementation zone and regards it as the previous land. In the case of liquidation under Article 126 (1) and (5) of the same Act, the payment method and time of the amount shall be prescribed in the relevant replotting plan shall also be included in the contents of the replotting disposition. Thus, even if the substitute land is delivered without liquidation under Article 126 (5) of the same Act, it cannot be permitted since a new liquidation by money after the effect of the replotting disposition has already changed the contents of the replotting disposition, and as long as it falls under the objects of liquidation under the objects of the replotting disposition at the time of the replotting disposition, it shall not be deemed a land substitution disposition as an invalidation disposition without giving money.

[2] In a case where replotting is granted without monetary liquidation for the land to be liquidated in accordance with Article 126(5) of the former Agricultural Community Modernization Promotion Act (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the Farmland Improvement Cooperatives Act, Act No. 5077 of December 29, 1995), the owner of the previous land shall acquire the right corresponding to ownership of the previous land for the land to be liquidated in accordance with Article 126(5) of the former Agricultural Community Modernization Promotion Act, and in a case where a joint replotting disposition is taken over with one land for the previous land owned by several persons, the owner of the previous land shall share the land substituted in proportion to the previous

[1] Article 126 (5) of the former Agricultural Community Modernization Promotion Act (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the Farmland Improvement Association Act, Act No. 5077 of Dec. 29, 1995), Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act (general administrative disposition), Articles 2 and 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [2] Article 126 (5) of the former Agricultural Community Modernization Promotion Act (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the Farmland Improvement Association Act, Act No. 5077 of Dec. 29, 1995)

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 91Da4591 delivered on April 26, 1991 (Gong1991, 1594) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 80Da2523 delivered on June 23, 1981 (Gong1981, 1408)

Plaintiff

Korea

An independent party intervenor 1 and one other (Attorney Hun-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul District Court Decision 98Na41161, 99Na19062 delivered on June 17, 199

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the independent party intervenors.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal regarding the validity of a replotting disposition

According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that the land was not owned by the Nonparty 2 under the Act on Special Measures for the Improvement of Farmland and the Nonparty 2, who was not owned by the Nonparty 1 and the Nonparty 2 under the same Act, and was not owned by the Nonparty 2 under the same Act as the Plaintiff’s previous provision of the Act on Special Measures for the Improvement of Farmland, and that the land was owned by the Nonparty 2 under the same Act, and was owned by the Nonparty 1 and the Nonparty 2 under the same Act as the Plaintiff’s previous provision of the Act on Special Measures for the Improvement of Farmland, and was not owned by the Nonparty 2 under the same Act as the Plaintiff’s previous provision of the Act on Special Measures for the Improvement of Farmland, and was not owned by the Nonparty 2 under the same Act as the Plaintiff’s previous provision of the Act on Special Measures for the Improvement of Farmland, and that the land was not owned by the Nonparty 2,767 square meters, which was owned by the Nonparty 1 and 964 square meters.

In light of the fact that Article 126 (1) and (5) of the former Agricultural Community Modernization Promotion Act provides that in the case of liquidation by money, the method and time of payment shall be determined in the relevant land substitution plan, liquidation by money shall also be included in the contents of a land substitution disposition. Even if a land substitution is delivered without monetary liquidation for the land to be liquidated by money under Article 126 (5) of the same Act, a new liquidation by money after the land substitution disposition becomes effective shall not be permitted because it alters the contents of the finalized land substitution disposition, and it cannot be permitted since a new liquidation by money after the land substitution disposition becomes effective, as long as it falls under the objects of liquidation by money at the time of the land substitution disposition, unless it is objectively clear that it falls under the objects of liquidation by money at the time of the land substitution disposition.

Therefore, in such a case, if owners of the previous land acquire the right corresponding to ownership of the previous land for replotting, and if a joint land substitution disposition is taken with one land for the previous land owned by several persons, the owners of the previous land shall share the land substituted at a rate corresponding to that of the previous land (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da4591, Apr. 26, 1991).

The judgment of the court below is just in accordance with the above legal principles, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to Article 126 (5) of the former Agricultural Community Modernization Promotion Act. The ground of appeal on this part is that the land in this case was owned by the deceased non-party, and that only the right of liquidation should be recognized to the defendant, but it cannot be accepted.

2. As to the ground of appeal on the property share

A person eligible for family inheritance under Article 980 of the former Civil Act (amended by Act No. 4199 of Jan. 13, 1990) is a person with the nationality of the Republic of Korea. According to the records, the intervenor 1 of the independent party has already lost the nationality of the Republic of Korea on Jan. 28, 1969 before the deceased non-party died on Jan. 21, 1989 and there is no right to inherit the family head. Thus, the court below's decision that the intervenor 1 of the independent party succeeded to the property of the deceased non-party only by 4/7 of the deceased non-party's property on the premise that the plaintiff 1 of the independent party has no right to inherit the family head, is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the share of property.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)