Where a land readjustment project is illegally implemented, the extent of the amount of liquidation as compensation amount;

In the event that the land readjustment project implementer actually provided the high-pollution road for public use without designating the land substitution, and without granting the land substitution, and thereby causes the land owner to lose its ownership, the scope of liability for tort is determined by comprehensively taking into account the location, land category, soil, environment and other matters of the previous land and the land substitution, and the calculation of the scope of the liquidation amount is determined by comprehensively taking into account the location, land category, soil quality, environment and other matters of the land and the following matters when the settlement amount is to be paid. It is determined in the land substitution plan and the scope of the liquidation amount is determined on the next day by the land substitution announcement, and it does not necessarily constitute the market price at the time of the public announcement of the remaining area after deducting the amount equivalent to the reduction rate.

Article 53 of the Land Readjustment Projects Act, Article 750 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 74Da1548 delivered on April 22, 1975

Supreme Court Decision 76Da2278 Delivered on January 11, 1977

Plaintiff 1 and one other, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 3 others

Daegu High Court Decision 76Na478 delivered on September 2, 1976

The original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

The first ground for appeal by the defendant's attorney is examined.

The public inspection procedure under Article 33 of the Land Rearrangement and Rearrangement Projects Act is merely to give the landowner or interested party in the land execution district of the land rearrangement and rearrangement project an opportunity to submit a written opinion on the project plan of the project implementer. Thus, even if the landowner did not submit a written opinion during the public inspection period, it cannot be said that the landowner provided the land without compensation for the implementation of the project or that the claim for damages caused by the land rearrangement and rearrangement project illegally implemented has not been extinguished, so the judgment below to the same effect

The second ground of appeal is examined.

Even if the land in this case was actually contaminated for public use, if the plaintiff, the owner of the land, provided the land without compensation, and if the project implementer lost the ownership through a final public announcement of replotting disposition without designating the substitute land for this land and paying a considerable liquidation money, the project implementer cannot be exempted from liability for illegal acts, as it would have been illegally implemented within that limit, and even if according to Article 53 (2) of the Act on the Readjustment of Land and Rearrangement Projects before the Amendment, it shall not be deemed that the land falling under the latter part is a land subject to which no substitute land is determined, and the liquidation money shall not be granted. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below did not designate the substitute land for this case in the replotting plan, and did not pay a considerable liquidation money, and judged that the loss of the ownership of the plaintiffs by the final public announcement of replotting disposition should be held liable for illegal acts, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles or in the misapprehension of legal principles as argued earlier.

The grounds of appeal No. 3 are examined.

According to the judgment of the court below, since the plaintiff et al. lost the ownership of the land in this case due to the defendant's illegal act, the amount of damages suffered by the plaintiff et al. shall be the amount equivalent to the liquidation amount for the area in this case when it is assumed that the substitute land was determined for this case's land, and the amount equivalent to the liquidation amount shall be the amount equivalent to the market price as of September 4, 1974, which is the next day of the disposition of replotting that lost the ownership of the land in this case's case's land, and the amount equivalent to the liquidation amount shall be the amount equivalent to the market price as of September

However, as seen above, in the event a land-building project operator loses its ownership by executing a land-building and rearrangement project without designating a substitute lot and not granting liquidation money, the amount of damages can not exceed the extent of liquidation money expected to be paid at the time the land owner should pay liquidation money. Meanwhile, according to the Land-building and Rearrangement Projects Act, in determining a land substitution plan, the project operator shall specify the liquidation money by lot and right of the land and obtain authorization from the competent administrative agency in accordance with the prescribed procedure (Articles 46, 47 of the Land-building and Rearrangement Projects Act). The liquidation money shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the location, land category, land category, soil, environment, and other factors of the previous land and substitute lot (Article 52 of the same Act). The liquidation money determined at the following day from the next day when a land substitution disposition is publicly announced (Article 62(5) of the same Act). The implementer shall collect or deliver liquidation money determined after a land substitution disposition was publicly announced (Article 68(1) of the same Act). Thus, the scope of the liquidation money to be paid at the same time as the market price can be determined.

In this case, even if the records are recorded, there is no data that can be seen as falling within the scope of the amount of liquidation money anticipated when the amount calculated by the method as stated in its reasoning is assumed to be paid the liquidation money in the previous manner. Thus, the original judgment cannot be said to have any error of illegality in misunderstanding the legal principles on the calculation of the amount of compensation for damages in this case, and the illegality has influenced the judgment, so it is therefore reasonable to point out this point.

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the grounds of additional appeal by the Defendant, the original judgment is reversed pursuant to Articles 400 and 406(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court which is the original judgment. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Min Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)