The validity of a replotting disposition in violation of the Enforcement Rule of the Land Readjustment Project Act enacted under the Land Readjustment Project Act

Land substitution disposition, which was made in violation of the Enforcement Rule of the Land Readjustment Project, enacted by an administrative agency that received an order to implement a land readjustment project under Article 44 (2) of the Joseon City Planning Ordinance, after obtaining authorization of the project plan, is null

Article 44 of the Joseon City Planning Ordinance (Abolition) and Article 32 of the Land Readjustment Project Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Korea

Gwangju District Court Decision 70Na143 delivered on May 3, 1973

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.

The court below, based on its timely evidence, found that the Plaintiff-owned land was 27 square meters prior to Gwangju City ( Address 1 omitted), 53 square meters prior to Gwangju City (Road 2 omitted) and 343 square meters prior to that time, due to a replotting disposition around December 1965, and that the land category was 53 square meters prior to that time, and that the land category was transferred to the land cadastre, but the land category was used as a road at the time of the completion of the pleadings at the time of the original instance judgment, and that there was no obvious violation of the rules for replotting disposition of 20 square meters prior to that time, and that there was no violation of the rules for replotting disposition of 53 square meters prior to that time of the enforcement of the 19th Urban Planning Project (Road 2 omitted), and that there was no violation of the rules for replotting disposition of 25 square meters prior to that time of the enforcement of the 19th Urban Planning Project, and there was no violation of the rules for replotting disposition of 292 square meters prior to that time.

The issue is groundless.

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

Justices Lee Byung-ho (Presiding Justice)