Whether the acquisition of a road in the region where the rearrangement project is approved can be deemed null and void because of the violation of an abuse of rights or public order and good morals.

Even if the land is classified as a road and is used as a public road in fact or in law, unless there are special circumstances such as the transfer of ownership or the prohibition of disposal thereof, it cannot be deemed as an abuse of rights or a violation of public order and good morals by being aware of it and purchasing it for the purpose of claiming compensation.

Articles 2 and 103 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 4294Da1392 delivered on March 22, 1962 (Supreme Court Decision 7101 delivered on July 1, 1962, 194; Supreme Court Decision 10Da756 delivered on December 26, 1972 (Supreme Court Decision 10Da756 delivered on December 26, 1972, Article 2 (12) 206 of the Civil Act)

Plaintiff

The Land Partition Association in the Yannam District

Busan District Court (72Ga1615)

The original judgment shall be modified as follows:

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 710,287 and the amount at the rate of five percent per annum from June 10, 1972 to the full payment.

The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

The litigation costs shall be ten minutes through the first and second trials, and their nine minutes shall be borne by the plaintiff and the remainder by the defendant.

A provisional execution may be effected only under paragraph (2).

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 11,584,568 won with 5% interest per annum from June 10, 1972 to the date of full payment.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant and provisional execution declaration

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff through the first and second trials.

On August 8, 1968, the defendant association implemented a land readjustment project for the Busan Southern District with the approval of the Minister of Construction and Transportation, and completed on June 9, 1972 and conducted a land substitution disposition with the approval of a land substitution disposition, there is no dispute between the parties. If the defendant association's statements in Gap 1 (the copy of the register, Eul 5) Nos. 2, 4, 7 and 8-2, and the testimony of non-party 1 as well as the whole purport of the parties' arguments as a result of the non-party's verification of the court below, the plaintiff purchased the land of this case from non-party 2 on October 5, 1968 (the 403 square meters on February 12, 1969) from the non-party 2 and purchased on the land of this case (the 403 square meters on the land of Busan Seo-gu, Busan Metropolitan City) on February 12, 1969. The non-party association's testimony is not contrary to this evidence.

Therefore, since the plaintiff lost ownership of the land of this case under Article 62 (1) of the Land Consolidation and Rearrangement Projects Act, the defendant's association is obligated to compensate the plaintiff for losses arising from the said land as the owner of the above land. Since the land of this case was already incorporated into the second line of Busan Metropolitan City before the execution of the Land Rearrangement and Rearrangement Projects Act and was actually used as a substitute for the above land, the land of this case is now constructed on the same land, and there is no reasonable ground to believe that the land of this case was not owned by the plaintiff for the purpose of this Article 14 of the Land Rearrangement and Rearrangement Projects Act, and the land of this case was not owned by the plaintiff for the purpose of this Article 20 of the Land Rearrangement and Rearrangement Projects Act. Since the land of this case was not owned by the plaintiff for the purpose of this Article, the land of this case, which was owned by the plaintiff for sale and rearrangement projects and the land of this case was not owned by the plaintiff for the purpose of this Article, the land of this case was not owned by the government before the new construction of this case.

After the defendant agreed that the former owner of the land in this case did not pay liquidation money to the specific land used for public use, such as the land in this case between the defendant association and the former owner of the land, the articles of association of the defendant association, the project implementation rules, the land substitution, and the land use by the non-party, and thereafter, the plaintiff purchased the land in this case from the non-party, shall also be deemed to have succeeded to the obligations of the non-party. Thus, the plaintiff cannot file a claim for this case, and since the plaintiff acquired the ownership of this land and reported the acquisition of the right pursuant to Article 79 of the Land Readjustment Projects Act and Article 8 of the project implementation rules of the same project implementation rules, it cannot be viewed that the alteration of rights cannot take effect because the plaintiff's claim for the land in this case was made due to the plaintiff's Gap evidence 8-1 and 2, but the non-party 2 consented to the execution of the land rearrangement project in this case, and therefore it cannot be viewed that the plaintiff's claim for the transfer of the right to the land in this case cannot be accepted.

Furthermore, we examine the amount of compensation. The substitute lot area which the plaintiff would have been entitled to be designated if the plaintiff had received substitute lot due to the defendant's above reorganization project shall be limited to the area of right excluding the area of common share according to the replotting plan. The amount of compensation should be equivalent to the market price at the time of June 10, 1969, based on the area of right. In addition, the statement of No. 11, without any dispute over the establishment of the plaintiff and the testimony of the above non-party 3 (excluding the above trust portion) of the above non-party 3, as well as the whole purport of oral argument, it is 29.5%, and it is obvious that the average rate of land in the rearrangement project district of this case is 0.5%, which is 2,500 won after the execution of the above rearrangement project 】 (the market price of the land of this case as of August 8, 1968 x 2,000 won after the above implementation of the project, which would have been substantially decreased as of the land at the time of this case was transferred.

The plaintiff claims KRW 1,106,568, the sum of rent per rent corresponding to "5% of the land price from October 1, 1968 to June 9, 1972, which is the date of the execution of the instant case, from October 1, 1968 to June 9, 1972. Thus, according to the provisions of Article 58 of the Act on the Rearrangement and Rearrangement of Land and Rearrangement Projects, the landowner of the land determined not to designate replotting can suspend the use or profit-making from the date of the determination of the due date. Therefore, the owner of the land can use or profit-making the land for which the designation of replotting was not made from the date of the determination of the due date to the date of the suspension of use or profit-making of the land from the date of the said date until the date of the completion of the construction of the said case. Since the plaintiff's statement No. 4 and No. 10, and the purport of the testimony of the witness, at the time of the instant project execution, the plaintiff had already been included in the above part of the land by the above project owner.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 710,287 and damages for delay at the rate of five percent per annum from June 10, 1972 to the date of full payment. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the court below's decision is unfair as it is reasonable to accept this within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder is dismissed as without merit. Thus, it is so decided as per Disposition by the defendant's appeal and by applying Articles 92 and 96 of the Civil Procedure Act, and Article 199 of the provisional execution declaration.

Judges Kang Jae-hee (Presiding Judge)

Judges Ophee et al. cannot sign and affix a seal on the whole part.