[1] In case where a claim for collection of liquidation money under the Land Readjustment Projects Act is reported as a reorganization claim and entered in the reorganization creditor list, whether the period of extinctive prescription shall be extended to ten years pursuant to Article 165 of the Civil Act (negative)

[2] In the case of a so-called increased land substitution, which is larger than the right area to which the premium rate for the previous land was applied after replotting, whether the right to the entire land including the increased portion after replotting is acquired (affirmative)

[3] In a case where a project implementer delays the entrustment of substitute lot registration for a long time without any particular reason, whether the landowner has the right to apply for the entrustment of substitute lot registration to the project implementer (affirmative), and whether if the project implementer refuses the entrustment of substitute lot registration, it constitutes an unlawful disposition (affirmative)

[1] According to Articles 62(5) and 68-2 of the former Land Reorganization and Rearrangement Projects Act (amended by Act No. 5904 of Feb. 8, 199), liquidation money for excess or excess in a land readjustment project shall be determined on the day following the date of public announcement of disposition of replotting, and the right to collect liquidation money shall expire by prescription if it is not exercised for five years. Meanwhile, the main text of Article 5 of the Company Reorganization Act provides that the participation in reorganization proceedings has the effect of interrupting prescription. Thus, if a company reorganization procedure has commenced against a person liable to pay liquidation money and a project operator reports a claim to collect liquidation money as a reorganization claim, it shall be suspended by prescription. However, pursuant to Articles 157(2) and 158(1) of the Company Reorganization Act, a claim that can be collected as liquidation money, such as a claim to collect liquidation money, shall be entered in the reorganization creditor list without undergoing an investigation and confirmation procedure such as general reorganization claim, but even if there is such entry, if the cause of objection is a report made in the reorganization claim under Article 15 of the Company Reorganization Act.

[2] According to Article 62 (1) of the former Land Readjustment Project Act (amended by Act No. 5904 of Feb. 8, 1999), where a land substitution disposition is publicly announced, the land substitution stipulated in the land substitution plan shall be deemed to be the previous land from the day following the date of the public announcement of the land substitution disposition. Therefore, the legal relationship existing on the previous land shall maintain its identity and transfer to the land substitution. In this case, even in the case of a so-called increased land substitution which is larger than the right area where the land size after the land substitution rate is applied to the previous land, the ownership of the previous land shall be lost and the ownership of the entire land after the newly granted land is acquired. Thus, even if the land size and the excessive land size are indicated, it is nothing more than determining the land substitution rate for the previous land among the land substitution in the land substitution plan, and it does not affect the acquisition of the right to the entire land after the land substitution.

[3] Article 65 (2) of the former Land Readjustment Act (amended by Act No. 5904 of Feb. 8, 1999) provides that in case where there is a change in the rights to land or structures in the execution district due to a land substitution and rearrangement project or a land substitution disposition, an implementer shall, without delay, apply for or commission the registration thereof pursuant to the Supreme Court Regulations after a land substitution disposition is publicly announced. This is deemed to impose an obligation on a project implementer to commission the registration of land substitution without delay after a land substitution disposition is publicly announced in order to minimize restrictions imposed in disposing of the property by failing to make any other registration under paragraph (3) of the same Article, even if the owner of the previous land becomes the landowner after the land substitution, so if the project implementer delays a request for the registration of land substitution for a specific period without any justifiable reason, the landowner has the right to request the registration of land substitution to the project implementer, and if the project implementer refuses it, it shall be deemed an illegal disposition.

[1] Articles 52, 62(5), and 68-2 of the former Land Readjustment Projects Act (amended by Act No. 5904 of Feb. 8, 199); Articles 5, 157(2), 158(1), and 245 of the Company Reorganization Act; Article 165 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 50 and 62(1) of the former Land Readjustment Projects Act (amended by Act No. 5904 of Feb. 8, 199); Article 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [3] Article 65(2) of the former Land Readjustment Projects Act (amended by Act No. 5904 of Feb. 8, 199); Article 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act

[2] Supreme Court Decision 70Da2109 decided Nov. 24, 1970 (No. 18-3, 308), Supreme Court Decision 79Da540 decided Jul. 8, 1980 (Gong1980, 1291), Supreme Court Decision 91Da39313 decided Apr. 28, 1992 (Gong1992, 1706), Supreme Court Decision 96Nu14784, 14791 decided Feb. 25, 197 (Gong1997, 948), Supreme Court Decision 97Nu13856 decided Apr. 14, 198 (Gong198, 1393) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 282Du1284 decided Apr. 28, 2002

Busan Metal Industry Co., Ltd. (Attorney Kim Nam-jin, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor (Law Firm Dong-dong Law Office, Attorney Ansan-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 99Nu6257 delivered on October 13, 1999

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. As to the second ground for appeal

According to Articles 62(5) and 68-2 of the former Land Reorganization Act (amended by Act No. 5904, Feb. 8, 199; hereinafter the same), liquidation money for the excess or excess in a land readjustment project shall be determined on the day following the date of the public announcement of a disposition of replotting, and the right to collect the liquidation money shall expire by prescription if it is not exercised for five years. Meanwhile, the main text of Article 5 of the Company Reorganization Act provides that the participation in reorganization proceedings has the effect of interrupting prescription. Thus, if a company reorganization procedure has commenced against a person liable to pay liquidation money and a project operator reports a claim to collect liquidation money as a reorganization claim, it shall be interrupted by prescription. However, pursuant to Articles 157(2) and 158(1) of the Company Reorganization Act, it shall be recorded in the list of reorganization creditors, such as a claim to collect liquidation money, without undergoing an investigation and confirmation procedure such as general reorganization claim, but even if there is such entry, if the cause of the claim is permitted, the reorganization creditor creditor can still file an objection claim under Article 15 of the Company Reorganization Act.

In the same purport, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the period of extinctive prescription regarding the claim to collect liquidation money of this case reported as a reorganization claim upon the commencement of company reorganization procedure against the plaintiff, was ten years as well as the claim on which a final and conclusive judgment has been rendered, and that the claim to collect liquidation money of this case has not yet expired. In light of the record, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff renounced the statute of limitations after the expiration of the statute of limitations. Thus, there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles on the statute of limitations of liquidation

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

According to Article 62 (1) of the former Land Readjustment Projects Act, where a replotting disposition is publicly announced, the land substitution stipulated in the land substitution plan shall be deemed to be the previous land from the day following the date of public announcement of the land substitution disposition. Thus, the legal relationship existing on the previous land shall be transferred to the land. In this case, even in the case of a so-called increased land substitution which is larger than the area of the right that applies the depreciation rate of the previous land, the ownership of the previous land shall be lost. Thus, even if the area of the land after the land substitution is newly assigned, it is nothing more than determining the object of the payment of liquidation money by separately indicating the ratio of the previous land among the portion of the land substitution in the land substitution plan as the area of the right, and even if the liquidation money has been determined under such circumstance, it is difficult for the project operator to request the registration of the land to acquire the entire land without delay (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Da39313, Apr. 28, 1992; 96Nu1471974, etc.

According to the facts established by the court below, in the land readjustment project of Dobong-gu, Seoul, which was owned by the plaintiff on December 5, 1980 in the land readjustment project of Dobong-gu, which was implemented by the defendant, the right area of 1,579 square meters and 871 square meters prior to ( Address 1 omitted) was totaled of 674.9 square meters, and the land substitution was publicly announced with 3,636.1 square meters ( Address 3 omitted) and the liquidation amount of 102,000,000 won was imposed on the plaintiff. The defendant did not request the above land substitution registration for a long time after the public announcement of the land substitution disposition, and the defendant applied for the above land substitution registration to the defendant on September 4, 1998, and the defendant did not request the above land substitution registration to the defendant on the premise that the above land subject to the payment of liquidation money can not be entrusted with the registration of the land subject to the payment of liquidation money on the ground that the above land was not applied to the above land substitution disposition.

Although the court below did not change the process of judgment, it is just to conclude that the defendant's disposition rejecting the plaintiff's request for a substitute lot registration was unlawful. It cannot be said that the judgment below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the commission of substitute lot registration, which affected

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)