The timing for calculating compensation for facilities annexed to farmland purchased by the State under the Farmland Reform Act;

Since the facilities under Article 2 (2) (a) of the Farmland Reform Act are prepared by the current market price on June 21, 1949, which was at the time of purchase by the State, the compensation should be calculated by the new adjustment price at the time of purchase and the due diligence method. As of June 21, 1949, the current government's grain statutory price in 1949 is not determined, so it should be based on the government's revenue price determined in 1948.

Articles 2 and 7 of the Farmland Reform Act

Supreme Court Decision 71Da325 delivered on April 28, 1971 (Kaad 9600, 9654 delivered on April 25, 197, Supreme Court Decision 19NuDoDoDo383 delivered on June 19, 197, Decision 2(76)1634, and Article 8(1658 of the Farmland Reform Act)

Plaintiff

Korea

Seoul District Court (68Ga5704) of the first instance court

Supreme Court Decision 71Da51 Delivered on March 13, 1973

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's claim extended in the trial is dismissed.

3. Of the total costs of the litigation, the part concerning the claim extended in the trial room shall be borne by the plaintiff and the remainder by the defendant.

(Extension in the trial)

It is confirmed that the Defendant’s compensation for facilities attached to farmland in the attached Table that the Defendant should pay to the Plaintiff is KRW 20,767,792.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of 20,767,792 won and the amount of 11,296,586 won from June 1, 1955 to 9,471,206 won with an annual rate of 5% from June 1, 1965 to the full payment.

The judgment that the lawsuit cost shall be borne by the defendant and the declaration of provisional execution are sought.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

In full view of the court below’s on-site verification results and the appraisal results of Gap evidence Nos. 1 (Application Form for Approval of Facilities Attached to Farmland) presumed to have established the entire document, Gap evidence Nos. 2 (Verification of License for Reclamation of Public Waters), the court below’s on-site verification results are recognized as follows: 756, 398, 176-1, 765, and 173, 597, and 177, 597 (hereinafter referred to as "Yansan-ri farmland") were owned by the plaintiff’s on-site improvement of the farmland Nos. 1, 750, 300, 884-6, 120, 120, 511 (hereinafter referred to as the "Egraul-ri"), 16, 165, 166, 166, 196, 196, 16, 300, 160, 196, 196, 16, 16, 1, 3, 1, , , 3, and 3.

Therefore, the above attached Table 1 and 2 facilities are structures prescribed in Article 2 (2) (a) of the Farmland Reform Act, and the defendant has the obligation to pay compensation for the part of the purchase site to the plaintiff, who is the owner of the land, in accordance with the above provisions of the Farmland Reform Act, in accordance with the ownership ratio of the farmland in each of the above land in the above land in the relevant land area in the relevant land in the relevant land in the relevant land in the relevant land in the relevant land in the relevant land in the relevant land in the relevant land in the relevant land in the attached Table 1.

Furthermore, with respect to the amount of compensation, it shall be compensated by the market price as of June 21, 1949, which is the time when the facility was purchased from the State. As such, the compensation amount shall be calculated according to the new fluoral price as of June 21, 1949 and the old fluoral price as of June 21, 1949 (as of June 21, 1949, the current fluoral price as determined in 1949 would be based on the government receipt price as of June 21, 1949). According to the results of the appraisal of the court below, the total 1,2 list of facilities will be 50 years for all, 1936 years for the completion date of construction of the first list of facilities, 20 years for the completion date of construction of the second list of facilities will be 1928, 200 won for the 196th 1, 1954.

However, the defendant's litigation performer's claim was terminated after the lapse of five years pursuant to the Budget and Accounts Act. Second, since the claim for compensation was terminated after March 13, 1969, the claim extended from the first five years of payment of compensation amount was already extinguished. According to Article 11 of the Act on Special Measures for the Adjustment of Farmland Projects, the claim for compensation amount to the facilities attached to the farmland was extinguished within 196% from the first five years of payment of compensation amount to 1954.1.6% of compensation amount to the second five years of payment of compensation amount to the second five years of payment of compensation amount. The plaintiff's claim for damages amount to the second five years of payment of compensation amount to the second five years of payment of compensation amount to the second five years of payment of compensation amount to the second five years of payment of compensation amount to the second five years of payment of compensation amount to the second five years of payment of compensation amount. The plaintiff's claim for damages amount to the second five years of payment of compensation amount to the second five years of payment of compensation amount to the 190th six years of payment of compensation amount.1.6 days of the above.

Therefore, the plaintiff is liable to pay damages for delay at the rate of 14,231,809 per annum from August 30, 1968 to full payment of the damages claim of the annexed Table 1,231,809 to the defendant. The defendant is liable to pay damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum from August 30, 1968 to full payment of the damages claim of the annexed Table 1, 231,809 to the defendant. The defendant is liable to pay to the plaintiff the above damages for delay at the rate of 14,231,80,00 won from June 21, 1968 to August 28, 1968, which is obviously 13,231,809 from the record that it is the next day after the application for change of the purport of the claim of the annexed Table 1,231,809 to the defendant. The plaintiff's claims for damages for delay can be accepted within the above recognized scope of the original judgment, and the defendant's appeal shall be dismissed.

[Attachment List]

Judges Kim Hong (Presiding Justice)