Whether the cost can be borne by the landowner who did not perform the actual project construction in the land readjustment project district;

In the execution of a land readjustment project, even though the actual project was implemented only for the district except for a specific district within the zone, the land readjustment project aims not only to enhance the utility of the land, but also to contribute to the sound development of the city and the promotion of public welfare, so the project is deemed to have been implemented as a joint project for the whole area including the specific district, so the cost required for the project shall be borne jointly by the land owner in the project

Article 52 of the Land Readjustment Projects Act

Supreme Court Decision 82Nu492 Delivered on January 31, 1984

Plaintiff 1 and 6 others, attorneys Choi Jae-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant

Msan City Mayor (Attorney Lee Young-young et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Daegu High Court Decision 82Gu194 delivered on February 16, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the Plaintiffs’ grounds of appeal.

In the implementation of a land readjustment project, even though the actual project was implemented only for the district excluding a specific district within the zone, the land readjustment project aims not only to enhance the utility of the land, but also to contribute to the sound development of the city and the promotion of public welfare, so the project is conducted as a joint project for the whole area including the specific district, so the cost required for the project shall be borne jointly by the whole land owner in the project zone (Article 82Nu492, Jan. 31, 1984). For the same purpose, in determining the land substitution area for the land owned by the plaintiffs in the land readjustment project zone, the lower court determined that the land substitution rate should not be included in the project cost required for the land concerned as well as the project cost required for the whole project zone, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the land substitution plan or the imposition of the liquidation amount for the above land, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the land excess of the average settlement rate of 40 percent above the land in the above region, and there is no error in the decision below.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices O Sung-sung(Presiding Justice)