A. Whether co-owners can exclusively use and benefit from the specific portion of the replotting if the public land is removed from the land and the location and topography of the previous land are maintained without any separate change (negative)

B. In the case of a land substitution for a place, whether the possession of a specific part of the previous land is the same before and after the designation of a land substitution for replotting (negative)

(a) Where a land substitution has been made, unless there are special circumstances, such as where co-owners possess part of the land substitution and make it possible for them to be in a mutual title trust relationship with each other, or they mutually and implicitly use each other to maintain the previous use state as they are, then the previous owners acquire co-ownership shares in relation to the land substitution at the corresponding rate of the previous land. Even if the land substitution is the land substitution place and the location and topography of the previous land are maintained without any change in the location and topography, co-owners cannot use or benefit from the specific portion of the land substitution exclusively.

B. Where a land substitution is designated prior to the completion of acquisition by prescription and the land substitution is finalized among possession of a specific part of the previous land, the specific part of the previous land cannot be seen as identical before and after the designation of the land substitution, and thus, the possessor of such part cannot be deemed to have occupied the relevant specific part on the land substitution or the land substitution.

A.B. Article 62(a) of the Land Readjustment Project Act. Articles 262 and 186 of the Civil Act / [title trust] Article 245 of the Civil Act

A. (B) Supreme Court Decision 88Meu18795 delivered on September 26, 1989 (Gong1989,1553). Supreme Court Decision 91Da5983 delivered on May 28, 1991 (Gong1991,1755) 91Nu11018 delivered on May 12, 1992 (Gong1992,1892), Supreme Court Decision 92Da38904 delivered on February 23, 1993 (Gong193,1071)

Plaintiff Kim Won-il, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant

Defendant 1 and one other, Defendants 1 et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee

Seoul High Court Decision 91Na20960 delivered on June 9, 1992

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the plaintiff was found to have no longer than 1,324.3 square meters for the above part of the above part of the land owned by the defendant 1 and no more than 1,600 square meters for the above part of the land owned by the defendant 1 and no more than 80.3 square meters for the above part of the land owned by the non-party 1 and no more than 1,000 square meters for the total land owned by the non-party 1 and no more than 1,000 square meters for the above part of the land owned by the non-party 1 and no more than 1,000 square meters for the above part of the land owned by the non-party 2. The non-party 1, who purchased the above part of the above part of the land owned by the non-party 1 and no more than 1,000 square meters for the remaining part of the land owned by the non-party 2, which is the non-party 1 and no more than 2,015 square meters for the land.

2. In the case of a replotting disposition, the previous land is subject to changes in the land area, shape, and location of the entire land due to replotting. Thus, even if a replotting is removed, unless there are special circumstances, such as co-owners are entitled to own part of the replotting and have mutual title trust relation with that part of the replotting, or they mutually and implicitly use each part of the previous land as they are in their use condition, the previous owners acquire co-ownership share for replotting at the corresponding rate of the previous land. Even if the replotting is so-called land substitution and the former land location and topography are maintained without changes in its location and topography, the co-owners cannot use and benefit from the specific portion of the replotting exclusively (see Supreme Court Decision 91Nu1018 delivered on May 12, 192). Thus, even if the land in this case maintains the previous land location and land location without changing its location and topographical map, the decision of the court below that there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the previous land use status between the plaintiff and the defendant 1 and each of the above land in this case.

In addition, even if the land is designated as a planned land substitution before completion of the period of the pre-sale, and the land substitution becomes final and conclusive, the possessor of the pre-sale part of the pre-sale part of the pre-sale part of the pre-sale part of the pre-sale part of the pre-sale land cannot be deemed to have occupied the pertinent specific part of the pre-sale land or the land substitution even before the land substitution is designated (Supreme Court Decision 88Meu18795 delivered on September 26, 1989). Defendant 1 purchased and occupied a specific part of the pre-sale part on March 24, 1954, and was designated as a planned land substitution on September 19, 1961, so the specific part of the pre-sale land cannot be deemed to be identical before and after the above designation of the pre-sale land substitution. Since the possession of the pre-sale part of the pre-sale part of the pre-sale part of the pre-sale part of the pre-sale part of the pre-sale, it cannot be viewed to have any other reasons for the defendants to assert the above conclusion.

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

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)