Whether the owner of the whole land in the project zone excluded from the execution of the land readjustment project has the obligation to jointly share the expenses incurred in the project.

In the implementation of a land readjustment project, even if the project has been actually implemented only to a district other than a specific district within the zone, the project shall be deemed to have been implemented as a joint project in the whole area including the specific district, so the cost required for the project shall be natural that the owner of the whole land in the project area has the obligation

Plaintiff 1 and 10 others, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Attorney Park Jung-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the land division rearrangement association's attorney Doz.

Seoul High Court Decision 71Gu514,561 delivered on December 24, 1974

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In establishing a land partition rearrangement association under Article 16 of the Land Rearrangement and Rearrangement Projects Act, the procedures provided by the Minister of Construction and Transportation after undergoing the procedures provided by the said Act and related Acts and subordinate statutes, and the establishment registration under Article 18 of the said Act is established by the establishment registration under the said Act and Article 18 of the said Act. Thus, the judgment of the court below that the defendant association was established by obtaining authorization from the Minister of Construction and Transportation in order to carry out a land rearrangement project in some areas of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Gun, Gu, rice, and ridge, including the land in this case owned by the plaintiff, and completed the registration of establishment is confirmed, barring any special circumstance, the court below's decision to reject the plaintiff's assertion to nullify the establishment is just and there is no evidence to acknowledge the grounds for nullification of the plaintiff's assertion in the process, and there is no objection to the contrary opinion, and there is no merit

2. As seen earlier, if the land owned by the plaintiffs was included in the project district of the defendant association and the registration of incorporation was completed with the authorization for the establishment thereof, the decision of the court below is justifiable that the defects in the establishment process were presumed to have not existed, and there was no evidence to undermine this presumption, it cannot be deemed that the land was incorporated into the project district of the defendant association, and even if the actual project was performed only in the district excluding a specific district within the specific district, the project was performed as a joint project in the whole area including the specific district. Therefore, it is natural that the cost required for the project should be borne jointly by the owner of the land within the project area. Therefore, even if the defendant association did not carry out the actual project itself, the decision of the court below that the plaintiffs should share the project cost executed by the defendant association, even if there is no evidence to view that the defendant association abused the right to implement the land partition execution, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the nature of the beneficiary's burden, such as the theory of lawsuit, or there is no inconsistency in the reasoning for the judgment.

3. As long as the establishment of the Defendant Union, which incorporated the instant land into the business zone, is presumed lawful, if there exists any illegality as alleged by the Plaintiff in the acquisition of the said land, the Plaintiff is responsible to prove such illegality. Accordingly, the court below’s measure is acceptable in this purport, and according to the records, the permission for reclamation of the instant land cannot be deemed as an authorization for urban planning or a land readjustment project for the purpose of creating a housing site for which the authorization was obtained under the former Urban Planning Act, and the fact of the court below’s approval that the said land was not included in the business district of the Defendant Union is acceptable. Accordingly, there is no error of law that violates the principle of proof, such as theory of lawsuit, or the principle

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and the costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yang Byung-ho (Presiding Justice)

Justices Kang Jeong-hee has an obstacle to signing and sealing.