Public project operators have not provided owners with an opportunity to redeem at the time of land expropriation and shall constitute tort;

■`기업자가 토지수용당시의 소유자에게 환매할 토지가 생겼으나 이를 지체없이 환매권자에게통지하지 아니한채 제3자에게 처분하고 토지소유자는 10년의 환매권 행사기간이 도과되어환매할 수 없게 되었다면 환매권자에 대하여 불법행위가 성립한다.

Articles 71 and 72 of the Land Expropriation Act, Article 750 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and three others

Sung Dong-dong branch of Seoul District Court (71Gahap219) in the first instance court

Based on the plaintiff's conjunctive claim against the defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City pays 3,00,000 won to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendant are dismissed.

The plaintiff's appeal against the defendant, etc. is dismissed.

Of the costs of lawsuit, two minutes for the conjunctive claim between the plaintiff and the defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and one of them shall be borne by the defendant's own, by his own money and the costs of appeal.

The plaintiff's attorney shall file for the first claim against the plaintiff. The defendant 1 shall file for the cancellation registration of transfer of ownership on July 24, 1970 as to the real estate No. 1 of the attached Table No. 1; the defendant 1 shall file for the cancellation registration of transfer of ownership on July 20, 1970 as to the real estate No. 1 of the attached Table No. 1; the defendant 3 shall file for the cancellation registration of transfer of ownership on June 5, 1971 as to the real estate No. 2 of the attached Table No. 26554; the defendant 4 shall file for the cancellation registration of transfer of ownership on June 1, 1970 as to the real estate No. 1 and 2 of the attached Table No. 29459; the defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City shall file for the cancellation registration of transfer of ownership from the plaintiff, and the defendant 182,400 won from the plaintiff, and at the same time file for the exercise of ownership registration on the real estate No. 2 of the title.

The court held that the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant, etc., and the defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City would pay the plaintiff the amount of KRW 5,577,600 with the preliminary claim at the trial court and sentenced a provisional execution.

The plaintiff's attorney has revoked the original judgment and has the same judgment as the purport of the claim.

1. First, we examine the Plaintiff’s primary claim against the Defendant, etc.

The land listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as this case's land) is originally owned by the plaintiff from among the land changed to 90 to 273 square meters by the change of administrative district name in Seongdong-dong, Seongdong-gu, Seoul by the change of 153 to 153-2, Seongdong-gu. The defendant is a public project operator of Seongdong-gu, Seoul. The defendant is not required to expropriate the land under the name of the plaintiff's title to use 273 square meters of the above site as a road pursuant to the Land Expropriation Act on December 30, 1961, as the plaintiff's 450,300 won for compensation for losses (or 4,503,000 won for compensation for losses, 1,900 won for the above site). The defendant's ownership transfer registration is completed on February 15, 1962, and it is not necessary to notify the plaintiff of each of the above land to sell it under the name of the defendant's title to 180.

Therefore, it is presumed that the registration of transfer of ownership is made on the land by the legal relationship of the plaintiff 1, 1, and 3. The plaintiff's legal representative holds the right of repurchase on the land under Article 71 of the Land Expropriation Act, so the defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City shall notify the plaintiff without delay when the expropriation of the land is no longer necessary, and even if the land should be redeemed to the plaintiff, the land should not be redeemed to the plaintiff 4, and the registration of transfer of ownership is completed on the land under the above name of the defendant 1 and 3. Even if it is not possible to exercise the right of repurchase, the plaintiff's right of repurchase should be cancelled on behalf of the plaintiff 1, 3, and even if it is not so, the land expropriation of the plaintiff 1 and 3 cannot be executed on the land under the former Land Expropriation Act. Therefore, the land expropriation of the plaintiff 1 and 3, which is no longer effective for the land expropriation of the plaintiff 2.

Then, as seen earlier, the date of expropriation on the main land of Defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City was December 30, 1961, and according to the records of this case, the Plaintiff received the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City District Court on December 21, 1971, which was served on the Defendant Special Metropolitan City as a business operator on February 1, 1972. However, it is evident that the Plaintiff did not pay the amount equivalent to the compensation paid to the land of this case to the Defendant Special Metropolitan City, a business operator, who is the business operator. Thus, on February 1, 1972, the Plaintiff could not repurchase the land of this case with the ten-year repurchase period under Article 71(1) of the Land Expropriation Act prior to the exercise of the right of repurchase on the land of this case.

Therefore, the plaintiff's primary claim against the defendant et al. based on the premise that the right of repurchase on the land of this case exists shall be dismissed, since it is not necessary to determine the remainder of the claims. Therefore, the original judgment, which forms the conclusion, is just and the plaintiff's appeal is without merit, so it shall be dismissed in accordance with Article 384 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act

2. Next, we examine the plaintiff's conjunctive claim against the defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

In determining the Plaintiff’s primary claim, the Defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City, a public project operator of the instant land, taking into account the following facts: (a) there is no dispute between the parties to the instant land; (b) the written appraisal report by Nonparty’s appraiser; and (c) the entire purport of the parties’ pleadings, when the need for expropriation of the instant land becomes unnecessary, the Defendant Special Metropolitan City, a public project operator of the instant land, may, pursuant to Articles 71 and 72 of the Land Expropriation Act, notify the Plaintiff, who was the owner at the time of the instant land expropriation of the fact that the land could be repurchased without delay pursuant to the provisions of Articles 71 and 72 of the Land Expropriation Act; and (d) there was a duty to give the Plaintiff an opportunity to repurchase the instant land; (e) the Defendant violated this obligation and did not make any notification to the Plaintiff, thereby making it difficult for the Plaintiff to expropriate the said land at KRW 1,89,800 on June 1, 1970.

Therefore, the defendant's negligence makes it impossible for the plaintiff to exercise the right of repurchase of the original land, and caused property damage equivalent to KRW 3,860,200,00,000,000,000, which is the market price 5,760,000 for the original land at the market price as of June 1, 1970, less the price paid by the defendant to the defendant 4 (the above amount should be paid to the defendant, who is the business operator, even if the plaintiff repurchases the original land pursuant to Article 71 (5) of the Land Expropriation Act).

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay 3,860,200 won to the plaintiff. On the other hand, in full view of the facts without any dispute and the whole purport of the parties' pleadings, if the plaintiff exercised the right to repurchase the land between June 1, 1970 and December 30, 1971, the time 10 years have elapsed from the time of expropriation, the time of expropriation, and when there is no need to expropriate the land, the plaintiff is obligated to pay 3,860,200 won to the plaintiff. Thus, if the plaintiff exercised the right to repurchase the land under Article 71 (6) of the Land Expropriation Act, the plaintiff could oppose the third party. Thus, even though the right to repurchase the land could have been redeemed, as seen above, even if the period for exercising the right to repurchase was exceeded, it can be seen that the plaintiff was negligent in the failure to repurchase the land. Accordingly, it is reasonable to pay 3,000,000 won as damages to the plaintiff. Accordingly, the defendant is obligated to pay the above money to the plaintiff.

Therefore, the plaintiff's conjunctive claim against the defendant is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remainder is without merit. Thus, the plaintiff's conjunctive claim against the defendant is dismissed, and Article 95, Article 89, and Article 90 of the Civil Procedure Act shall apply to the cost of lawsuit and Article 90 shall not apply to the provisional execution declaration, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Han Man-Sung (Presiding Judge)