The scope of damages in case of loss of land ownership by implementing a land readjustment project without designating the land substitution plan for the de facto road and the liquidation money is not paid.

If the land readjustment project executor has lost the ownership of the road due to the final public announcement of a replotting disposition by executing a debt project without designating the land substitution degree for the de facto road and without paying the liquidation money, the land readjustment project executor shall not be exempted from the liability for the tort to the owner, and the amount of such damage shall not exceed the liquidation money anticipated when the settlement money is to be paid for such land.

Article 53 of the Land Readjustment Projects Act

Supreme Court Decision 74Da1548 delivered on April 22, 1975

Plaintiff

Gwangju City

Gwangju District Court of the first instance (70Ga2197)

Supreme Court Decision 74Da1299 delivered on July 8, 1975

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the next order of payment shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 2,598,750 won with 5% interest per annum from July 13, 1970 to the date of full payment.

The plaintiff's remaining appeal is dismissed.

The total cost of a lawsuit shall be three minutes, and two minutes shall be borne by the plaintiff and the remaining one by the defendant.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 10,480,000 won with 5% interest per annum from July 13, 1970 to the full payment day.

The total cost of litigation shall be borne by the defendant.

The above paragraph (2) can be provisionally executed.

In light of the purport of testimony and oral argument of Non-party 1, non-party 2, non-party 3, non-party 4, non-party 4, and non-party 5, non-party 4, and non-party 97-32, non-party 4, non-party 97-32, and non-party 97-33, which were originally owned by the plaintiff and were officially owned by the plaintiff, and were officially owned by the non-party 2, and the non-party 1, non-party 3, non-party 4, and the non-party 4, the non-party 97-party 4, the non-party 97-party 4, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 3, and the non-party 3, the non-party 31, the non-party 4, the non-party 98-party 1, the non-party 31, the non-party 4, the non-party 98-party 31, the non-party 38.

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the amount of damages suffered by the Plaintiff due to the Defendant’s above tort as to the amount of damages to be compensated by the Defendant is not in excess of the scope of the settlement amount to be paid as settlement amount at the time of the execution of the land readjustment project. According to Nonparty 5’s testimony as of March 4, 1967, when considering the usual price and depreciation rate of the land at the time of the above disposition of land substitution determination as of March 4, 1967, the fact that the amount expected to be paid as settlement amount at the time of the above disposition of land substitution determination as of March 4, 1967 is in excess of 11,250 won per annum. The appraisal result of Nonparty 6’s appraiser is difficult to believe and there is no other evidence to change this, and the Defendant is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff at the rate of 2,598,750 won (11,250 won x 231 square meters) equivalent to the above settlement amount as well as damages for delay from July 13, 1970.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder is groundless and dismissed. Since the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the above quoted amount in the judgment of the court of first instance which was different result is unfair, the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above quoted amount is revoked and the result is just and the plaintiff's appeal is without merit, and it is so dismissed. The plaintiff's total expenses of the lawsuit are three minutes and two others are assessed against the defendant, and provisional execution is not attached. It is so decided as per Disposition as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jae-ju (Presiding Judge)