The amount of damages to be paid by the project implementer to the "private land actually being used for public use" for which a replotting disposition has become final and conclusive after the enforcement of the former Land Rearrangement and Rearrangement Project Act (No. 2848, Dec. 31, 1975) by obtaining authorization prior to the enforcement of the said Act, and the implementation of the said Act during the process of the

In the case where the private land actually used for public use, which was not provided without compensation, is included in the land subject to the said land readjustment project and the land ownership is lost by the disposition of land substitution confirmation after the said legal enforcement, the amount of damages due to the tort that the project operator is liable for against the land owner shall be the amount equivalent to the appraised value as at the time of the approval of the project under Article 2 (2) of the Addenda of the said Act.

Article 763 of the Civil Act, Paragraph 2 of the Addenda of the former Land Readjustment Project Act (Act No. 2848 of December 31, 1975)

Supreme Court Decision 82Nu492 delivered on January 31, 1984

Plaintiff

Attorney Park Jae-il, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 83Na3583 delivered on May 11, 1984

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

(1) As determined by the court below, if the defendant market price included the land in the above land subject to the land subject to the land readjustment project without designating the land substitution without designating the land substitution, and if the plaintiff lost ownership through the final public notice of the disposition of replotting on January 18, 1982 through the final public notice of the disposition of replotting on November 28, 1969, the construction volume public notice No. 120 and August 24, 1971, the construction volume public notice No. 120 and the construction volume public notice No. 77 of the construction volume public notice No. 128, Dongdong-dong 1,24, and the execution of the land readjustment project, which was conducted by the land readjustment project, was not provided without compensation, the defendant, who is the project implementer, cannot be exempted from the liability for tort which was illegally executed. The above judgment of the court below is just in the misapprehension of legal principles or in the misapprehension of legal principles, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles.

(2) The court below presumed that the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the defendant's above tort is the amount of liquidation money anticipated to be paid for the land incorporated into general land substitution, and calculated the amount of KRW 33,465,00,00, which is the amount assessed at the time of replotting disposition in this case's land readjustment project, as the plaintiff's damages. However, in the case of this case's land readjustment project, where the project approval was obtained before December 31, 1975 and then the land confirmation notice was made thereafter, the land for public use should be liquidated by means of replotting disposition at the time of project implementation authorization (see Article 2 (2) of the land readjustment Project Act, Act No. 2848, Dec. 31, 1975). Thus, if this case's land corresponds to "whether there is a reason actually being used for public use", the amount of damages to be compensated by the defendant shall be the amount equivalent to the liquidation money at the time of project implementation authorization at the time of this case's project implementation authorization.

The court below did not make any determination as to the defendant's assertion that the land of this case constitutes "private land for public use" and calculated the amount of damages as above on the ground that the land of this case was incorporated into a general land substitution rather than a road, there is an incomplete hearing or an error of law in misunderstanding legal principles as to Article 2 of the Addenda to the Land Readjustment and Rearrangement Projects Act. Therefore, there is a ground for appeal

(3) Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Gangseo-young (Presiding Justice)