In the execution of a land readjustment project, the validity of the case where the liquidation money collected is increased and imposed without obtaining authorization for modification concerning the increased project cost.

Even if there is a procedural illegality in the process that did not take the modification authorization of the Minister of Construction and Transportation with regard to the increase in the project cost in the execution of a land readjustment project, the imposition of the liquidation money already imposed shall not be immediately null and void only by such fact.

Articles 55 and 47 of the Land Readjustment Projects Act

Plaintiff 1 and 34 plaintiffs et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant

Attorney Song Young-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 74Gu115 delivered on July 15, 1975

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

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

The lower court determined that, in the execution of the instant compartmentalization and rearrangement project by Defendant Daejeon City, the project cost was arbitrarily increased on the grounds of the land price of debt, which was not followed by the procedures such as a modified authorization, etc. of the Minister of Construction and Transportation under the relevant provisions of the Land Rearrangement and Rearrangement Projects Act, and other price fluctuations, and that the amount higher than the original settlement money of the Party, which was set as the settlement money for collection and the settlement money for payment, was imposed on the Plaintiffs who received the excessive substitute area, and thus, this disposition

However, the collection and delivery of the settlement money is based on the ideology of removing and harmonizationing unfair results such as land substitution which existed objectively in the previous land, and profits and losses arising from excess or excess of the land substitution confirmed in reality, and such amount should be individually and objectively calculated in accordance with the land substitution and land price calculation rules, etc. authorized at the time of execution, taking into comprehensive account all the matters stipulated in Article 52 of the Land Readjustment and Rearrangement Project Act, regardless of the difference in the definition of project cost liability. Therefore, it is difficult to deem that such settlement money is directly affected by the determination of project cost in the rearrangement project

In this case, if the settlement money for collection against the plaintiffs is imposed as the amount calculated in accordance with the above calculation criteria, the disposition of imposition itself is legitimate, and therefore, the Minister of Construction and Transportation may not recognize that the reason for such illegality is legally calculated and the disposition of collection by the defendant imposed on him, on the ground that there is an illegal cause not obtaining the approval of the Minister of Construction and Transportation for the increase in the business cost which is contained in the self-sufficiency plan

Therefore, the court below should first consider whether the defendant's disposition of this case was based on legitimate calculation basis, and should have judged whether such improper result was attributable to the illegal cause in the above procedure of modification approval. However, it is true that there was an illegal cause in the procedure of modification approval as to the business expenses. Thus, the court below's judgment that the disposition of collection of this case's liquidation amount is null and void as a matter of course, cannot be said to have affected the judgment by misapprehending the legal principles on the nature of substitute land settlement money under the Land Readjustment and Rearrangement Projects Act or the invalidity of administrative disposition as a matter of course.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yu Tae-hun (Presiding Justice)