In case where the replotting of one parcel for the land of several lots with different owners is determined, the relationship between the use and the profit-making

Where a substitute lot of a parcel has been legally designated for a parcel of land which has different owners, the ownership of the previous parcel of land is fulfilled as it is, and as a result, the previous owners are so-called replotting and maintain the location and topography of the previous parcel of land, barring any special circumstance, the previous owners shall acquire co-ownership shares for the substitute lot, and shall not exclusively use and benefit from the land by excluding the co-owners.

Article 61 of the Land Readjustment Projects Act

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and two others

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 77Na198 delivered on October 27, 1977

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

The defendants' grounds of appeal are examined.

In a case where a replotting disposition is publicly announced, the land substitution stipulated in the replotting plan is deemed to exist in the previous land from the day following the day when the land substitution disposition is publicly announced, and the ownership and other rights relationship existing in the previous land are transferred to the land, maintaining its identity. Therefore, in a case where a legally designated land substitution is made in respect of several different lots of land, the ownership of the previous land shall be deemed to acquire co-ownership shares in the land according to the corresponding ratio to the previous land unless there are special circumstances as a result of the performance of the original land as it is. This is also identical to the original land substitution. On the other hand, co-owners shall own co-ownership according to their shares, but cannot use them exclusively by excluding other co-owners, so even if the records are determined, the original land is deemed to exist in the mutual title trust relationship, or the defendant shall maintain and use the previous land as it is, or shall not be able to use or benefit from the previous land or to recognize the use and profit-making conditions thereof, and there are no reasonable reasons for the previous land substitution to be 381,000 square meters.

Therefore, the appeal of this case is dismissed in accordance with the provisions of Articles 400, 395, and 384(1) of the Civil Procedure Act as it is without merit. The burden of litigation costs is governed by Articles 95 and 89 of the same Act and is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Min Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)