(a) Whether the previous landowner acquires ownership of the site for which a disposition for designation has been taken as the reserved land for replotting;

B. The previous owner's right to use the above site

(a) Whether the previous landowner acquires ownership of the site for which a disposition for designation has been made as the reserved land for replotting;

B. The previous owner's right to use the land so ordered.

Article 47(1) of the Decree on the Implementation of the Shipbuilding's Land Planning; Article 143(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Decree on the Factory Market Planning; Article 24(4) of the Decree on the Improvement of Shipbuilding's Land; Article 5(2)1 of the Enforcement Rule of the

Macu Machan

Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor

Kim Young-young

Seoul High Court Decision 58Da54,43 delivered on September 5, 1958

the original judgment shall be reversed.

The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

Defendant 1’s new legal representative’s ground of appeal No. 1 is determined.

According to Article 3 (1) of the Sub-Appellant Act, a plaintiff must file a lawsuit within one month from the date he becomes aware of an administrative disposition. Thus, there is no evidence to deem that the defendant, as of January 23, 4291, there was an administrative disposition changing the instant joint land substitution into an individual temporary land substitution, and the plaintiff was aware of it on that day. As such, the end of the appellant who filed the lawsuit on March 8, 4291 on the premise that the plaintiff should not be aware of it, may not be employed. The ground of appeal No. 2 is determined.

Although the land No. 374-2 of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Jongno-ro 5 was owned by the non-party safety team on October 4, 4278, when the joint land was designated as substitute land, the plaintiff acquired the ownership on December 10 of that year. Even though the court below stated that the above land was owned by the plaintiff at the time of the joint land substitution and that he was also the plaintiff at the time of the land substitution disposition, even though the land was designated as substitute land, there is no change in the ownership of the previous land until the land becomes final and conclusive as substitute land, so it is necessary for the plaintiff to calculate the above land without examining the nature or quantity of the right acquired by the plaintiff in this regard, and the end of the appellant is without merit.

The ground of appeal No. 3 is examined.

Since the original judgment did not confirm the designation of the land reserved for joint replotting with the Plaintiff and the Intervenor’s auxiliary land as the main disposition of replotting, there is no ownership or right to use the land reserved for replotting, so the Defendant’s assistant intervenor cannot request the Defendant to change the land reserved for replotting and to permit construction. Nevertheless, the Defendant’s assistant intervenor stated that the designation of the land reserved for joint replotting is an act infringing upon the rights and interests of the Plaintiff out of the land reserved for joint replotting and that construction permission again is an unlawful act. However, according to Article 47(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Seoul Metropolitan Government Ordinance, the lower court’s determination that the land reserved for joint replotting should not be ordered to move the previous land reserved for replotting or to remove the previous land reserved for replotting under the premise that there is no change in the land reserved for land substitution area for the purpose of this case’s construction and improvement of the previous land reserved for replotting under Article 47(2) of the Seoul Metropolitan Government Ordinance, which provides that if the previous land owner is designated as the land reserved for improvement and improvement of the land at the market price of the previous land proposed for replotting.

Judge Lee Young-su (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court Justice Lee Young-chul (Presiding Judge)