Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport

The disposition that the land readjustment project executor does not designate the land substitution and does not pay the liquidation money to the land owner is a fair administrative disposition. Therefore, if this is not revoked by a legitimate administrative litigation procedure, the disposition shall bind the court. Therefore, the plaintiff can not claim compensation for damages caused by tort against the defendant who caused the loss of land ownership.

Articles 52 and 62 of the Land Readjustment Projects Act

Supreme Court Decision 74Da1548 delivered on April 22, 1975

Kim Ho-hun et al.

Busan City

Busan District Court (73 Gohap173)

Supreme Court Decision 75Da225 delivered on December 23, 1975

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

The total litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiffs.

The defendant paid to the plaintiff Kim Yong-hun an amount of 2,909,112 won, the plaintiff Lee Young-young, Kim Jong-jin, Kim Jong-jin, Kim Jong-hee, and Kim Jong-hee, an amount of 1,454,556 won, a gold of 727,278 won, and an amount of 5% per annum from the day following the delivery of the complaint to the day of complete payment.

The judgment that the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and the declaration of provisional execution are sought.

The same shall apply to the order.

On January 9, 1967, the defendant market is implementing a land readjustment project for the first installment zone under the Land Readjustment Projects Act for the land of the first installment, including the separated land in the separate list Nos. 1, 2, and 3 attached Form No. 1, 1967, and there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the public notice of each land substitution disposition was given on June 30, 197 for the land in the third inventory list.

The plaintiffs originally owned the land listed in the separate list Nos. 1 and 2, but they were jointly inherited by the plaintiffs as the death on March 17, 1962. The land listed in the third list is the sole land owned by the plaintiff Kim Yong-hun. In the implementation of the above land readjustment project, the defendant was actually incorporated into the road at the time of June 25 incident and was officially used when the land in this case was expanded between Busan Jin-gun and shipping fleet at the time of the above land, and the land in this case was not designated as part of the road, and the liquidation money was not paid without designating the land in accordance with the latter part of Article 53 (2) of the Land Readjustment Project Act. As such, the land substitution disposition was announced as above without designating the land in this case from the following day of the above public announcement date of the land substitution disposition, and thus, it was argued that the land substitution project implementer requested the defendant to pay compensation for damages at the market price at the time of the loss of ownership. Therefore, the defendant's disposal of the land as a legitimate administrative disposition of this case can be cancelled.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims for objection are dismissed as there is no room for further determination. Accordingly, the original judgment is unfair with different conclusions, and the defendant's appeal is reasonable, so it is revoked by Article 386 of the Civil Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 96 and 89 of the same Act with respect to the bearing of litigation costs.

Judges Lee Jong-dae (Presiding Judge)