A person who has acquired the right to use the land as a result of the designation of a reserved land for replotting shall claim exclusion from interference.

A person who has acquired a right to use and benefit from the designated land as a planned land substitution shall claim exclusion from interference.

Article 57 of the Land Readjustment Projects Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

Seoul Central District Court Decision 68Na274, 275 delivered on December 19, 1970

The part concerning the non-party among the part against the defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) shall be reversed, and it shall be remanded to the Seoul Civil Procedure District Court Panel Division.

All appeals against the remainder are dismissed.

With respect to the grounds of appeal by the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff, the original judgment is adjoining to the Plaintiff’s ( Address 1 omitted) 61 and 54 of the same Dong (Road 2 omitted) that is the Plaintiff’s ownership in its reasoning explanation, and about 54 of the above Defendant-Counterclaim 54, the lower court determined that around 64.5 of the above ( Address 1 omitted), including “A, B, C, D, and A,” and the above ( Address 2 omitted), were disposed of as a designated land substitution, and that the above ( Address 2 omitted) and around 64.5, including “A, C, D, and A,” were installed in the above portion of “A, B, C, and A,” as indicated in the original judgment, and it was established in the above portion of “A, B, D, and A,” and thus, it was not finalized as a land substitution before the designated land substitution was made, the Defendant-Counterclaim Lessee did not seek the right to use and benefit from the above portion of “A, B, D, and A.”

However, as a result of a simple disposition of designating a land as a land substitution, a person who has the right to use and benefit from the previous land can enjoy benefits from the previous land as a result of the designation from the effective date of the land substitution disposition to the time of the public announcement of the land substitution disposition. On the other hand, a person who has the right to use and benefit from the land substitution cannot enjoy benefits from the previous land. On the other hand, since the person who has the right to use and benefit from the land substitution cannot do so among others, the defendant (Counterclaim) who acquired the right to use and benefit from the land as the effect of the simple designation as the land substitution, which is included in the land substitution disposition, can file a claim for the exclusion of interference due to the right to use and benefit from the above part, and it cannot be denied only because the right to claim for the removal of facilities and delivery of the part is not confirmed or is installed before the land substitution is designated as the land substitution disposition, but the original judgment based on the opposing opinion is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the use and benefit from the land substitution (other than the part).

Among the parts against Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) in the original judgment, the remainder of the counterclaim and the part on the principal lawsuit are not indicated in the grounds of appeal.

Therefore, according to Articles 400, 406, and 399 of the Civil Procedure Act, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

The two judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) the Red Net Sheet