Where a flat land substitution disposition is made with respect to land for sale, whether it shall be based on the whole land substituted in calculating the scope of compensation for damage caused by non-performance of the obligation to transfer ownership.

Where a replotting disposition is publicly announced, the land substitution stipulated in the replotting plan shall be deemed to be the previous land from the day following the date when a replotting disposition is publicly announced (Article 62(1) of the Land Readjustment Projects Act), and in order to indicate the area of the right and the excessive area of the land in the increased land substitution plan, the land substitution ratio for the previous land among the land substituted in the replotting plan is stipulated as the area of the right and the excessive area is nothing more than determining the object of the payment of liquidation money. Since there is no influence on the effect that the entire land substitution is regarded as the previous land, in case of a increased land substitution disposition, a seller is liable for the registration of ownership transfer for the entire land of the land of the previous land of the land of the land of the land of the land of the land of the land of the land of the land of the land of the land of the land of the land of the land of the land of the land of the land

Articles 50 and 62 (1) of the Land Readjustment Project Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Jae-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

[Judgment of the court below]

National Agricultural Cooperative Federation (Attorney Jeong Jong-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 90Na57491 delivered on September 25, 1991

The part of the lower judgment against the Plaintiff regarding the ancillary claim is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The defendant's appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. We examine the Plaintiff’s attorney’s grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the defendant was obligated to compensate the plaintiff who acquired the damage claim of this case from the above non-party 1 for the amount equivalent to the market price at the time of the non-party's performance of the damage claim of this case as of June 22, 1973, since the non-party 1 purchased a specific portion of 1,123.11 square meters (hereinafter "real estate of this case") out of 13,714 square meters from the above forest, and acquired the ownership transfer registration of 1,123.1 shares out of 8,223.3 shares of the above forest on convenience, and then sold the real estate of this case to the non-party 2 on June 22, 1973. Since the above non-party's obligation to transfer ownership was impossible, the real estate of this case was already in accord with the land cadastral map (5) through (7) of the judgment below divided from the above forest and the land of this case, and (5) through (7) through (7) 974) of the land size of the above real estate area of the above.788.

However, when a replotting disposition is publicly announced, the land substitution stipulated in the replotting plan shall be deemed to be the previous land from the day following the date when the replotting disposition is publicly announced (Article 62(1) of the Land Rearrangement and Rearrangement Projects Act), and in order to indicate the area of the right and excessive area in the increased land substitution, the land substitution ratio for the previous land out of the land substitution in the land substitution plan shall be stipulated as the area of the right and the excessive area shall be stated as a few minutes and it is nothing more than determining the object of the payment of liquidation money, and there is no influence

Therefore, if the Defendant, while selling the instant real estate which is the previous land to Nonparty 2, expressly agreed that only the area of the right among the land to be substituted is subject to sale, unless otherwise, the Defendant bears the obligation to transfer ownership to Nonparty 2 as to the entire land substituted by the land. Therefore, it is right to calculate the scope of compensation for damages due to the nonperformance of ownership transfer registration based on the whole land substituted by the land (However, whether the amount of liquidation amount for the excessive area should be deducted from the amount of damages calculated as above is

Nevertheless, without examining the sales contents with Defendant and Nonparty 2, the lower court deemed only the portion corresponding to the area of the right among the instant real estate subject to a replotting disposition as the previous land and calculated the amount of damages due to impossibility of performance based on the area of the right based on the area of the right. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine of a replotting disposition, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The grounds for appeal assigning this error are with merit.

2. We examine the Defendant’s attorney’s grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below recognized that the real estate of this case sold by the defendant to the non-party 2 based on its macroficial evidence is consistent with the attached list (5) through (7) of the judgment below in the cadastral map. In light of the evidence relations established by the court below based on the records, the court below is justified in finding the above facts of the court below, and there are no errors in violation of the rules of evidence, such as the pointing out of the theory of lawsuit, or in

In addition, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the real estate in this case belongs to another person's ownership and thus, even if the defendant's obligation to transfer ownership was impossible to fulfill his obligation to transfer ownership, there is no evidence that there was no liability for damages. In light of the process of cooking evidence conducted by the court below according to the records, the judgment of the court below is acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence as pointed out by the theory of lawsuit, and there is no ground for this argument.

3. Therefore, among the judgment below, the part against the plaintiff as to the conjunctive claim shall be reversed and remanded, and the defendant's appeal shall be dismissed. The costs of appeal as to this part of the appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)