The case of calculating damages due to the execution of an illegal land readjustment project;

The appraisal amount of liquidation money for the neighboring land of this case is KRW 13,00,000 per square day, and the defendant's attorney himself is the city. Thus, it shall be deemed that the appraisal amount of liquidation money for the land of this case is equivalent to KRW 13,00,000 per square day, which is the appraisal amount of liquidation amount for the neighboring land.

Article 750 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 76Da2720 delivered on May 10, 197, 76Da2336 delivered on May 10, 197

5 other than Lee Nam-nam, a litigation taking-off of the deceased senior.

Man-type pen

Busan City

Busan District Court (71 Gohap1710)

Supreme Court Decision 73Da239 delivered on May 13, 1975

The original judgment shall be modified as follows:

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff Tho-ho 608,40 won, plaintiff Tho-ho 600 won, gold 101,400 won, gold 202,800 won to the plaintiff Tho-ho ho-ho, the plaintiff Tho-ho, and the plaintiff Tho-ho ho-ho, and the plaintiff Tho-ho ho-ho, each of which is 1,35,250 won and the amount calculated by the rate of 5 percent per annum from April 2, 1973 to the plaintiff Tho-ho ho-ho, and the amount calculated by the rate of 1,35,250 won from July 1, 1973 to each completion.

The plaintiffs' remaining claims are dismissed.

All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

A provisional execution may be carried out only under paragraph (2).

The plaintiff shall expand its claim in the trial of the court;

The defendant will pay to the plaintiff Soho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho, 494,680 won, 123,690 won, 247,380 won for the plaintiff Soho-ho

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and a declaration of provisional execution.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs in the first and second instances.

The land listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 through 5 is the land indicated in the separate sheet No. 6 of the plaintiff Lee Nam-nam, No. 1, No. 3, and No. 2, No. 2,3, and No. 3-B, and No. 1,2, and No. 5-1,2, and No. 5-2, and No. 1,2, and No. 3 of the separate sheet No. 5, and the testimony of the lower court witness No. 9.3, the land was owned by the Minister of Construction and Transportation on Nov. 6, 1968, and the land listed in the separate sheet No. 6, including the land listed in the separate sheet No. 1,2,3, and No. 1,2, and No. 3 of the separate sheet No. 1,5, which was owned by the deceased C&D, was no dispute between the parties, and the previous land owned by the plaintiff No. 1,3,000.

Therefore, even if this land was actually offered for public use from the previous time, so long as the owners do not provide it for free, the defendant Si, a project implementer, should have paid only a considerable amount of liquidation money instead of designating a substitute land by Article 53 of the Land Readjustment Projects Act, and the defendant Si, a project implementer, lost the plaintiffs' ownership of this land by completing the project without paying the settlement money settlement money and making a public announcement of a replotting disposition. Therefore, the defendant City, a land readjustment project was illegally implemented within the limit, and therefore, the defendant Si is liable to compensate the plaintiffs for the damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to such unlawful act.

Furthermore, the amount of damages suffered by the Plaintiffs due to their unlawful disposition as to the amount of damages is the amount equivalent to the liquidation amount at the time of loss of ownership corresponding to the substitute lot area (the area obtained by deducting the area of common use from the previous land area) that can be received if they were designated as substitute land for the land in this case. The average depreciation rate for the land in the above charging and the first new land readjustment project zone is 35% because there is no dispute between the parties, the substitute lot area for the land in the attached Forms 1 through 5, which was owned by the deceased Jincian, shall be 148.2.2.2. [28-(28 x 35/100)], the total area of the substitute lot for the land in the attached Schedules 60, 165-(165-25 x 35/100) of the deceased, 104, 200, 300, 160, 160, 160, 360, 10, 30, 10, 10.

However, if the owners of this case delivered a written opinion under Article 53 of the Land Rearrangement and Rearrangement Projects Act, the defendant City would be a monetary liquidation, but the defendant City failed to submit the above written opinion and completed the above project without paying settlement money. Therefore, the damages of this case is also attributable to the plaintiffs. However, the plaintiffs failed to submit the written opinion under Article 33 of the same Act, unless it is proved that the business plan should be modified. Thus, it cannot be deemed that there was any negligence on the plaintiffs in the damages of this case. Thus, the above argument is groundless.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff Lee Nam-nam, the 202,800 won for each of the above recognition limits, 608,400 won for the plaintiff Cho Jong-ho, and 5 percent per annum of the Civil Code from April 2, 1973 to the completion of each of them. Thus, the defendant's main claim is justified within the above recognition limits, and the court below's decision is unfair because the remaining claims are without merit. Accordingly, the defendant's appeal is modified in accordance with the plaintiffs' claim expansion at the court below's judgment, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 389 of the Civil Procedure Act. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 98 of the Civil Procedure Act. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 98 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judges Park Jae-sik (Presiding Judge)