Whether a person who does not have ownership or superficies on land in a land readjustment project district has legal interest in seeking cancellation of the approval of the execution of a land readjustment project (negative)

In accordance with the provisions of Articles 6, 9, and 16 of the former Land Readjustment Act (amended by Act No. 5904 of Feb. 8, 199), since an individual becomes the principal agent of the Land Readjustment Project, or at least seven persons who become the principal agent of the Land Readjustment Project, as an individual, or an association formed by the association and have the legal qualifications and rights to obtain authorization for the execution of the Land Readjustment Project, shall be the landowner and superficies in the Land Readjustment Project district. Therefore, a person who does not have ownership or superficies on the land within the Land Readjustment Project district shall be an individual, as the principal agent of the Land Readjustment Project, or an association formed by at least seven persons who become the principal agent of the Land Readjustment Project and become the principal agent of the Land Readjustment Project, there is no benefit to seek revocation of the authorization for the execution of the Land Readjustment Project.

Articles 6, 9, and 16 of the former Land Readjustment Project Act (amended by Act No. 5904 of Feb. 8, 1999); Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Plaintiff (Appointed Party) (Attorney Han-chul et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Do Governor of Chungcheongnam-Nam

The astronomical Market

Daejeon High Court Decision 2000Nu282 delivered on May 25, 2001

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff (Appointed Party).

1. As to the Appointor 1’s ground of appeal

The lower court determined that there was no evidence to acknowledge that, at the time of the filing of the instant lawsuit, there was no evidence to acknowledge that, at the time of the filing of the instant lawsuit by the Plaintiff (designated parties, hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff”), the appointed party 1 appointed the Plaintiff as the designated party or confirmed that the

Compared with the evidence of the record, this fact-finding by the court below is just, and there is no error of law as to finding facts in violation of the evidence law.

The grounds of appeal are rejected.

2. As to the allegation in the grounds of appeal by the Appointor 2

In accordance with the provisions of Articles 6, 9, and 16 of the former Land Readjustment Act (amended by Act No. 5904 of Feb. 8, 199), since an individual becomes the principal agent of the Land Readjustment Project, or at least seven persons who become the principal agent of the Land Readjustment Project, as an individual, or an association formed by the association and have the legal qualifications and rights to obtain authorization for the execution of the Land Readjustment Project, shall be the landowner and superficies in the Land Readjustment Project district. Therefore, a person who does not have ownership or superficies on the land within the Land Readjustment Project district shall be an individual, as the principal agent of the Land Readjustment Project, or an association formed by at least seven persons who become the principal agent of the Land Readjustment Project and become the principal agent of the Land Readjustment Project, there is no benefit to seek revocation of the authorization for the execution of the Land Readjustment Project.

In full view of his adopted evidence, the court below found that the selected person 2 owned 1/2 shares out of 1,421 square meters of the ( Address omitted) 1,421 square meters located in the Seoan-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter referred to as the " Zone 1") in the Yanananbuk-do Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter referred to as the "Yanananbuk-do Special Metropolitan City") and then transferred the registration of ownership transfer to the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 on June 25, 1997, and that he did not own ownership or superficies with respect to the land within Zone 1 at the time of the closing of argument, and determined that the designated person 2 was illegal in the lawsuit of this case brought by the selected person 2, as an individual or joint entity of the land readjustment and rearrangement project or the partnership consisting of not less than 7 persons as the principal agent of the land readjustment and rearrangement project, and as there is no legal qualification and right to obtain the authorization of the execution

In comparison with the evidence in the records, the court below's fact-finding is just and there is no error of law that found the facts in violation of the rules of evidence, and in light of the above legal principles, the judgment below is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the qualification of parties.

The grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.

3. As to the allegation in the grounds of appeal by the Appointor (including the plaintiff)

In the event that the court below rendered a decision dismissing the lawsuit of this case against the designated parties 3, 1, and 4 on the ground that they were illegal lawsuits brought by the plaintiff without authority, the court below did not err by omitting judgment on the failure to make a decision on the merits as alleged in the grounds that the remaining designated parties (including the plaintiff) had no standing to sue, and on the ground that they were unjustifiable lawsuits.

The argument in the grounds of appeal is not accepted.

4. Conclusion

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

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)