1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. From October 13, 1973, the Plaintiff is the owner who completed the registration of ownership transfer as to Pyeongtaek-si B large 65 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. On December 30, 1974, the Defendant Mayor made a disposition including the content of joint substitution of five parcels of land, including Pyeongtaek-si E, F 15, F 18, G 0.6, H 20 square meters (hereinafter “ Pyeongtaek-si C”), including the land in this case, by omitting the land in this case, and publicly announcing it.

The plaintiff asserts to the effect that there was no public notice due to the absence of the public notice document, but in light of the draft document and the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes prepared at the time, the public notice can be recognized sufficiently.

(hereinafter “Disposition of this case’s substitute land”). C.

On August 31, 1995, the Defendant Mayor settled money with respect to the land of F 18 square meters, G 0.6 square meters, H 20 square meters, and H 20 square meters and four parcels of land, including the instant land, and issued a land substitution change disposition with the content that the instant land is solely replaced by J 75.4 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”). (hereinafter “instant land substitution change disposition”).

As to the previous disposition of replotting of this case, it is stated that the land of F 18 square meters, G 0.6 square meters, H 20 square meters, and H 20 square meters, including the land of this case, is jointly substituted at J 75.4 square meters with regard to the previous disposition of replotting of this case, there is difference from the result of the disposition of replotting of this case.

Although it is unclear, it is inferred that there was a disposition of change of land substitution in the middle.

On December 7, 1995, the Plaintiff filed an application for the extension of the payment of the liquidation money for the land substitution in this case, and on July 2003, the Plaintiff filed an application for the purchase of excessive area among the land substitution in this case.

E. At the time of the instant land substitution disposition, “K and two other” were registered as joint owners due to land substitution.

I was divided into L and J on March 9, 1983 and L.