Whether the claim for confirmation of the existence of the right to claim the substitute land delivery is the object of civil procedure

The dispute over the existence or legitimacy of the claim for substitute transfer of the previous land substitute and other land equivalent thereto is not subject to administrative litigation and civil litigation as a claim for confirmation of the relationship of rights under public law, which is an administrative litigation.

Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Articles 56, 61, and 62 of the Land Readjustment Project Act

Private Service

Suwon-si

Suwon District Court of the first instance (77 Gohap620)

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's lawsuit concerning the main claim in this case shall be dismissed.

The plaintiff's conjunctive claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff of the first and second instances.

The plaintiff's attorney shall revoke the original judgment.

As the purport of this claim, the plaintiff confirms that the defendant has the right to receive a substitute lot of 412 2 bbebbbbes in the land lot in the execution of the land readjustment project by the defendant for the land in the attached list.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 12,366,00 won with 5% interest per annum from April 8, 1978 to the date of full payment.

The court costs were assessed against the defendant in both the first and second trials, and the provisional execution order on the above monetary payment part was sought.

1. To judge the claim on confirmation of the existence of the claim for delivery of replotting; and

성립에 다툼없는 갑 제1호증의 1 내지 11(등기부등본), 갑 제5호증(진정서에 대한 추가 회시), 갑 제7호증의 1(환지처분통지서),2 내지 4(각 정산통지서), 을 제1호증(수원시 역전 1,2지구 토지구획정리사업 시행인가), 을 제2호증(시행인가 공고문), 을 제3호증(진정서 회시), 을 제4호증의 1 내지 3(환지확정처분 및 청산설명서), 을 제5호증(수원역전 1, 2지구 토지정리구획사업 환지예정지지정인가) 을 제6호증(영화 2지구 및 수원역전 1, 2지구 토지구획정리사업 환지처분확정), 을 제8호증 1(환지예정지 지정인가신청),2(목록), 3(금전청산서), 5 내지 7(환지예정지지정조서), 을 제9호증의 1 내지 12(환지설명서)의 각 기재와 변론의 전취지를 모아보면 피고가 원고의 소유이었던 청구취지기재의 토지(이하 이사건 토지라 한다)가 포함된 수원시 역전 1, 2지구를 그 시행지구로 하여 토지구획정리사업법에 의한 토지구획정리사업을 시행하고자 사업계획을 정한 후 1971.7.16. 건설부장관의 시행인가를 받아 그후부터서는 위 사업의 실시를 함에 있어서 1972.4.17. 경기도 지사로부터 환지예정지 지정계획인가를 받고 1972.5.17. 위 사업지구내의 토지에 대하여 환지예정지 지정통보를 하였으며 위 사업지구에 대한 환지계획에 있어서 이사건 토지는 구거 및 도로로 제공되어 있음을 그 이유로 하여 당시 시행중이던 토지구획정리사업법(1966.8.3. 법률 제1822호) 제53조 제2항 후문의 해당 토지로서 환지를 정하지 아니한 사실, 원고는 이사건 토지가 경작에 제공된 토지임을 이유로 1976.4.23. 이사건 토지에 관한 위와 같은 환지계획의 변경을 청원하였으나 피고는 1970.7.21.-1970.12.21.간의 조사측량도면 및 1972.8.2. 촬영한 항공사진을 입수하여 조사한 결과 원고의 이사건 토지 687평중 130평은 경작한 사실이 확인되었고 나머지 557평은 그 당시에도 구거 및 도로로 제공되어 있었음을 사실로 인정하여 이사건 토지중 557평 부분은 위 당초 환지계획대로 같은법 제53조 제2항 후문인사도 또는 기타의 공공의 용에 사실상 공하고 있는 사유지로서 구획정리사업의 시행으로 인하여 이에 대체되는 시설이 설치될 경우의 사유지에 해당하여 이를 변경할 수 없음을 1976.9.21.자로 원고에게 통보하는 한편 농경지로 경작한 사실이 있음이 확인된 나머지 130평은 같은법 제54조 에 따라 시행자인 피고가 구획정리사업에 필요한 경비충당등을 위하여 환지를 정하지 아니하고 체비지로 지정한다는 환지계획 변경통보를 한 사실, 피고는 1977.6.경 위 사업지구 전부에 대한 토지구획정리사업을 준공하여 환지처분을 하게 되었는데 이사건 토지에 대하여서 위와 같은 환지계획에서 정한 사항대로 환지교부처분을 하지 아니하고 같은법 제52조 의 규정 및 위 환지청산처분당시 시행중이던 토지구획정리사업법(1975.12.31. 법 2848호) 부칙 제2항의 각 규정에 따라 위 사업시행 인가시의 평가액으로서 평당 금 1,800원으로 환지청산하여 이사건 토지중 수원시 세류동 211의 4에 대하여서는 금 300,600원, 같은동 442의 1의 토지는 금 102,600원, 같은동 458의 5 토지는 금 88,200원, 같은동 460의 6 토지는 금 108,000원, 같은동 440의 4 토지는 금 174,600원, 같은동 460의 8 토지는 금 86,400원, 같은동 471의 4 토지는 금 86,400원, 같은동 472의 4 토지는 금 46,800원, 같은동 479의 4 토지는 금 79,200원, 같은동 479의 5 토지는 금 90,000원, 같은동 479의 6 토지는 금 75,600원으로 한 그 환지 청산사항과 위 청산금의 교부의 사실을 원고에게 1978.4.7. 통지하고 같은날 수원시 제46호로서 위 환지처분확정 공고를 한 사실등을 각 인정할 수 있고 이와 달리할 자료가 없다.

However, according to the above provision of Article 62 (1) of the Land Readjustment Projects Act, in case of a land substitution disposition (land substitution disposition and land substitution liquidation disposition), the land substitution stipulated in the land substitution plan becomes extinct when the date following the day when the land substitution disposition is publicly announced and the right existing on the previous land which is not determined in the land substitution plan is terminated when the land substitution disposition is publicly announced. According to the provision of Article 62 (5) of the same Act, liquidation money provided for in Article 52 of the same Act shall be determined on the day following the day when the land substitution disposition is publicly announced. Thus, in light of the above provision of the above, in light of the above, the plaintiff's execution of the above land substitution and construction of the above land substitution project and the above land substitution disposition becomes null and void on April 8, 1978 when the date when the land substitution disposition becomes final and publicly announced is terminated.

2. Although the Plaintiff’s legal representative has been used as farmland in fact and has been provided for domestic public use, it does not correspond to the construction of facilities replacing the land due to the execution of a land readjustment project, and did not constitute the corresponding land under the latter part of Article 53(2) of the Land Readjustment Project Act, and thus, the land substitution and liquidation disposition was taken without the so-called land substitution and liquidation disposition during a land substitution disposition. This is a significant and obvious violation of laws and regulations, which is null and void as it is a rightful and void. Therefore, 40% of the reduction rate of 687 square meters (687x (100/100/400) of the land in this case) shall be applied to 412 square meters (687x (100/100/100) and therefore, it shall be deemed that the existence of the so-called

As a result of the execution of a land readjustment project, the right to claim a substitute lot is a right under public law which occurs specifically and finally due to the so-called land substitution transfer disposition, which is an administrative disposition to exchange the previous land and the same value of the land which is the object of the right, when it is necessary to convert the existing ownership or other rights existing on the land. Therefore, a dispute over the existence or validity of a substitute lot transfer claimant to receive another land equivalent to the previous land substitute lot is a legal doctrine that can not be contested by a civil lawsuit, which is an administrative litigation, by a claim for confirmation of legal relationship under public law.

Thus, without examining the existence of the right to claim the substitute land delivery concerning the land in this case, the lawsuit on the part of the original claim in this case shall be dismissed as it is unlawful as it is the subject matter of the civil procedure, since it is not a matter of the civil procedure.

Then, in conducting the land readjustment project of this case by the plaintiff's conjunctive claim, even though the land in this case was farmland which had been cultivated by water supply, water supply, and electric crops, the defendant did not set the land substitution plan but did not pay the liquidation money when determining a land substitution plan by mistake in the corresponding land in the latter part of Article 53 (2) of the Land Readjustment Project Act, and let the plaintiff in me lose ownership of the land in this case. Thus, the plaintiff in this case should not be exempted from liability of tort to the plaintiff who is the land owner in this case by illegally implementing the above project. The amount of damages shall be determined within the limit of paying liquidation money within the limit of paying the liquidation money, based on the area of the right of the previous land and substitute land at the time of authorization for the project implementation, land category, land category, soil, water quality, repair, utilization status, environment, and other matters, it shall be determined that it is reasonable to view it as the amount calculated based on the amount of 30,000 won per square year [30,1400-2000 square meters-20.]

In conducting a wrong land readjustment project, the owner of the land does not provide his own land for public use such as roads or ditches without compensation, and the project operator loses the ownership of the land by not only the land substitution level (which does not provide the land substitution delivery disposition), but also the land substitution liquidation disposition corresponding thereto, i.e., the payment disposition for liquidation money, within the scope of the land substitution disposition determined and publicly notified, the project operator shall not be exempted from liability for tort. Accordingly, the damages suffered by the owner of the land shall not exceed the extent of the liquidation amount anticipated at the time the liquidation amount is to be paid for the land, and the amount of liquidation amount determined by the land substitution announcement shall be within the scope of the next day and the amount of the settlement amount determined by the land substitution announcement shall be the same as the next day. In this case, the defendant, the owner of the land in this case, as the project operator, should not report this case's land to the plaintiff as the owner of the land, or present it to the court that did not have a reasonable ground for the above land substitution disposition to the extent that it did not have any other land substitution disposition as a legitimate disposition.

Thus, there is no reason for the conjunctive claim part of the plaintiff's attorney in this case.

3. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim on the merits of this case shall be dismissed in an unlawful and unlawful manner. Since the original judgment has dismissed the above claim by judgment on the substantive merits, the original judgment shall be revoked in accordance with the plaintiff's favorable judgment and the lawsuit on the merits of this case shall be dismissed in accordance with the original judgment, and the plaintiff's preliminary claim on the merits of this case shall be dismissed in the original judgment as it has no reason, and it shall be dismissed as per Disposition by applying Articles 96 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act

Judges Park Jong-dong (Presiding Judge) Kim Jong-sung