In the execution of a land readjustment project, the effect of imposing the liquidation money collected without obtaining authorization from the Minister of Construction and Transportation for the increase in the project cost.

The collection and delivery of liquidation money under the Land Rearrangement and Rearrangement Projects Act is based on the ideology of in harmony with the removal of unfair results, such as the benefits and losses arising from the excess or excess of the replotting confirmed in reality with the previous land, and such liquidation money shall be individually and objectively calculated in accordance with the land price calculation rules, considering all the circumstances under Article 52 of the same Act, in consideration of all the circumstances, and it is difficult to see that it is directly affected by the determination of project costs in the rearrangement and rearrangement project, so long as it is calculated in accordance with the above calculation criteria, it is difficult to see that such settlement money is directly affected by the determination of project costs in the rearrangement and rearrangement project, it shall not immediately affect

Articles 32 and 52 of the Land Readjustment Projects Act

Supreme Court Decision 75Nu188 Decided December 27, 1977

Plaintiff 1 and 28 Plaintiffs’ attorneys-at-law

Masan market et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee

Daegu High Court Decision 80Gu97 delivered on June 16, 1981

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the Plaintiffs’ grounds of appeal.

The collection and delivery of liquidation money under the Land Rearrangement and Rearrangement Projects Act is based on the ideology of removing and harmonization the unfair results such as land substitution which exists objectively with respect to the previous land and the profits and losses arising from excess or excess of the land substitution confirmed in reality, and such amount shall be individually and objectively calculated according to the land substitution and the land price calculation rules, etc. authorized at the time of execution by comprehensively taking into account all the matters stipulated in Article 52 of the Land Rearrangement and Rearrangement Projects Act, notwithstanding the excess of the project cost settlement. Therefore, it is difficult to deem that such liquidation money is directly affected by the determination of project cost in the land rearrangement project. Therefore, as determined by the court below, as long as the collection liquidation money imposed on the plaintiffs by the defendant market is calculated in accordance with the above calculation criteria, even if there is an unlawful cause for not obtaining authorization of change of the Minister of Construction and Transportation, such unlawful cause may not affect the imposition of liquidation money of the defendant, and therefore, it cannot be accepted from the dissenting opinion of the judgment below as to the defendant (see Supreme Court Decision 75Nu188, Dec. 27, 197).

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are jointly assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice)