The case holding that since the disposition of replotting correction is deemed to be a substantial new execution of a land readjustment project, there is no procedure such as approval by the Minister of Construction and Transportation for it.

The case holding that the reduction rate shall be newly set for the land for which the first replotting was determined by the name of reorganization of cadastral non-conformity after ten years have passed since the first land substitution was determined, and the location and the number of plane shall be re-determined, and the disposition of rectification of a disposition of replotting to determine the public facilities and the land allotted by the Minister of Construction and Transportation for a new land readjustment project shall be null and void as long as no procedures such as approval, etc.

Articles 47 (1) and 62 of the Land Readjustment Projects Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Lee Dong-young and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee

Plaintiff

Seoul High Court Decision 201Na11448 delivered on May 2, 201

Seoul High Court Decision 90Na32539,91Na10873 delivered on July 15, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged, based on macroficial evidence, the fact that the disposition of replotting correction, which was made in the name of cadastral non-conformity rearrangement, was made on July 18, 1986 after ten years after the first land substitution became final and conclusive as stated in the judgment of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, was to adjust the reduction rate for the land for which the first land substitution becomes final and conclusive without obtaining the approval of the Minister of Construction and Transportation, and to redetermine the location, horizontal number, and set the new public facilities and development recompense land, and then the above disposition of replotting correction was completely a new land substitution project. Since the above disposition of replotting correction is not an essential procedure for the execution of the above project, there was no procedure of the Minister of Construction and Transportation to revise the first land substitution disposition, and therefore, the above fact finding and judgment of the court below are acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the mistake of facts due to the violation of rules of evidence, or the land substitution disposition and the land substitution recompense disposition.

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

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

Justices Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)