The legal relationship between the former buyer of the lands sold by the project implementer by designating the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay before a replotting disposition.

In case where the project implementer designated a land allotted by the authorities in recompense of development outlay and sold it before a land substitution disposition is taken in accordance with the provisions of Articles 54, 57 (4) and 62 (6) of the Land Readjustment and Rearrangement Projects Act, and where it is transferred before it, if the former purchaser was transferred the land, the buyer acquired the right to use and make profits from the land similar to the real right, but he acquired the ownership in accordance with the above Act on the following day of the

Articles 54, 57(4), and 62(6) of the Land Readjustment Projects Act

[Defendant-Appellant] Lee Jae-soo

Attorney Choi Woo-hwan et al., Counsel for the land partition rearrangement association in Ulsan-si, Jinsan-si

Daegu High Court Decision 86Na1473 delivered on April 9, 1987

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

1. The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, since the land of this case listed in the list of sub-paragraph 1 through 4 of the annexed Table 1 at the time of original adjudication was not designated as land substitution land by the defendant within the first district defense zone in Ulsan-si, Seoul-si, which was executed by the defendant as the executor, and it was difficult for the non-party 1 to purchase the above land as land substitution land under the contract with the non-party 1, who was contracted with the above land rearrangement project and executed the above land rearrangement project, and it was transferred the right of disposal to the non-party 1 as well as to the non-party 4 of this case's claim that the non-party 1 purchased the above land of this case on August 8, 1979 because most of the land of this case was completed, and the non-party 1 purchased the above land as the non-party 1's right to purchase the above land at the request of the above non-party 1 to the non-party 1, the above non-party 1, the land substitution land ownership of this case was recorded 5.

2. However, according to the court below's reasoning that the non-party 1 purchased the above land from non-party 4 and the non-party 1 to 5, Eul's certificate 7-1 to 8-4, Eul's certificate 12-1 and 17-2, and Eul's certificate 17-1 and 18, and the non-party 2 acquired the above land from the non-party 1 and the non-party 4's non-party 5's transfer of the land at the same time under the name of the non-party 1 and the non-party 5's transfer of the land and the non-party 4's transfer of the land at the same time as the non-party 1 and the non-party 5's transfer of the land at the same time after the non-party 2's purchase and sale of the land at the same time, the non-party 1 and the non-party 2's sale of the land at the same time as the non-party 1 and the non-party 4's sale of the land.

3. Therefore, the court below should have judged whether the non-party 1 transferred the right on the land of this case, such as the defendant's head of the defendant's place of origin after further examination, without any name, whether the non-party acquired the ownership by the transfer of the land of this case. However, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the mistake of facts by violating the rules of evidence or the purchaser of the land allotted by the recompense for development outlay, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.

Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)