(a) Designation of a land scheduled for replotting or validity of a disposition of replotting, which is not notified to the owners (effective relations);

B. Whether the suspension of registration has the effect on the authorization or public notice of the designation of the reserved land for replotting (negative)

(c) Where a building permit exists in a land readjustment project zone after the disposition of the designation of the land scheduled for replotting, whether the disposition of the land scheduled for replotting may be deemed to have been withdrawn or cancelled (negative)

(d) If the land for public use borne by the previous land in accordance with the rearrangement of land partitioning belongs to the State or a local organization, a separate expropriation procedure is required (negative)

(e) Even though excessive reduction rates are applied, a replotting disposition shall be valid (former legal relations).

A. According to Articles 36 and 37 of the former Joseon City Planning Order and Land Improvement Order, and Articles 36 and 37 of the former Urban Planning Act, even if the land owner at the time of such disposition did not individually notify the land owner at the time of the execution of a land readjustment project of the designation of land substitution or the determination of land substitution, such disposition shall not be deemed null and void.

B. According to Article 43(2) of the former Joseon City Planning Ordinance, Articles 24(4) and 26 of the Shipbuilding Land Improvement Decree, and Article 16 of the Land Improvement Registration Rules, when the approval and public notice of the Do Governor with respect to land substitution is made, other registration shall not be made unless the registration due to land substitution is made. The suspension of land registration shall not be effective.

C. According to Article 10 of the Joseon City Planning Decree, Article 13 of the former Urban Planning Act, etc., the form and quality alteration of land or construction, etc. shall be prohibited after the public announcement of the approval of the urban planning is given, but where the permission of the head of a Si/Gun is granted, the construction of a building on the previous land with the permission of the head of a Si/Gun after the public announcement of the approval of the urban planning in light of the fact that the construction

D. Even if the public land price borne by the previous land due to the Joseon City Planning Ordinance or the land subdivision under the former Urban Planning Act belongs to the ownership of the State or local organizations, it is not necessary to make a separate land expropriation procedure to acquire the ownership, since it is the effect of the land subdivision itself.

E. According to the provisions of Article 43(2) of the former Urban Planning Ordinance, Article 24 of the Land Improvement Decree, and Article 32 of the former Urban Planning Act, the payment of liquidation money in accordance with a replotting disposition is limited to certain cases, and the depreciation rate for the land is excessive and there is no payment of liquidation money which compensates the difference, even though there is no payment of liquidation money which is paid for the difference, it shall not be deemed that the same replotting disposition is null and void.

A. Articles 43(2) and 37 of the former Joseon City Planning Act of Article 43(2) of the former Joseon City Planning Act of Article 36(2) of the former Joseon City Planning Act of Article 43(2) of the former Joseon City Planning Act of Article 24(4) and Article 26 of the said Act of Article 16 of the said Ordinance. Article 10 of the Joseon City Planning Ordinance of Article 13(d) of the former Enforcement Decree of the said Act of Article 20 of the said Act of Article 34 of the said Act. Article 24 of the former Enforcement Decree of the said Act of Article 32 of the said Decree

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 5 others, Counsel for defendant-appellant-appellee

Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor

Seoul High Court Decision 78Gu548 delivered on October 7, 1980

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs' grounds of appeal are examined.

Point 1,

According to the list of documentary evidence, which is a part of the statement of pleading, the plaintiffs' legal representative has acknowledged Eul's evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, which had originally been the site for its formation at the fourth pleading date of the court below, and it is clear in the letter that the court below did not employ Eul evidence No. 5 when recognizing the facts in its judgment, and it is due to the lack of proper reading of the records and the judgment of the court below concerning the admissibility of evidence or the value of evidence. In light of the records, it is sufficient to find the facts in the judgment of the court below, and it is sufficient to find the facts in the judgment by the evidence of the court below, and even according to the provisions of the old Joseon City Planning Ordinance and the Land Improvement Order applied mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 43 (2) of the same Decree, the designation of the land substitution project at the time of application of the above Act is not individually notified to the land owner at the time of the execution of the land substitution plan, and the effect of the land substitution plan was not announced to the land owner at the time of the above land substitution plan.

Point 2,

According to Article 43(2) of the former Joseon City Planning Ordinance, Article 24(4) and Article 26 of the Shipbuilding Land Improvement Decree, and Article 16 of the Land Improvement Registration Rules, when the approval and public announcement of the land substitution have been made, the land substitution cannot be made unless the registration due to the land substitution is made, and there is no ground for recognizing the effect of the suspension of registration in the authorization or public announcement of the land substitution. (The proviso of Article 65(3) of the former Act) If there is a change of rights until a land substitution disposition has been issued, the land substitution disposition for the land to the transferee's name can not be taken as a report of the change of rights. (The proviso of Article 65(3) of the Land Readjustment Projects Act)

This paper is groundless.

Point 3,

It is not clear whether the other market price plan for the land of this case is what contents and whether it was completed prior to the replotting disposition or not, and there is no evidence to deem that the land rearrangement project in this case is unnecessary as a result, so there is no reason to see that it was completed as a whole.

Point 4,

Even if the above Joseon City Planning Ordinance or the old Urban Planning Act allocates a piece of land under the exchange, division or combination of land, change of land category or form or alteration of roads, squares, rivers, parks, and other public facilities, or installation, alteration or abolition of land expropriation itself, it has the nature of so-called physical public burden (the cost of land within the rearrangement zone) like land expropriation. However, as regards legal relationship of land, it is only deemed that the previous land is performed as the area, form or quality alteration, and there is no change in its contents. Thus, even if the previous land is owned by the State or local organizations under the division adjustment, it does not require a separate land expropriation procedure for the purpose of acquiring the ownership, and it does not require a separate land expropriation plan for the purpose of acquiring the land, as it does not require a separate land expropriation plan for the purpose of acquiring the land, since the previous land is not subject to a legitimate land substitution plan for the purpose of land expropriation under the provisions of Article 34 of the Act, Article 20 of the Enforcement Decree of the previous Urban Planning Act, and it does not require a new land expropriation plan for individual land expropriation project.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kang Jong-young (Presiding Justice)