Where any land located within a district subject to the land partition has been designated as a reserved land for other land, the effects of the disposition taken by the landowner before the authorization and public notice of the land substitution

Even if a certain land located in a zone subject to the land partition has been designated as a reserved land for replotting of another land, the owner of the previous land may dispose of the previous land.

Articles 31, 35, 36, and 37 of the Urban Planning Act

Mopy-dong

The Director General of Seoul Government

Seoul High Court Decision 62Gu68 delivered on December 27, 1962

The original judgment shall be reversed and the judgment

The case shall be remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal No. 2 in the annexed appellate brief of the plaintiff's representative are examined.

According to the original judgment, the court below held that the sale contract between the original defendant as to the land in question, which is the land for land substitution, shall be null and void since the land for land substitution which is the land for land substitution, which is the land for land substitution, has moved to the legal relation about the use of the previous land and the land for land substitution which is the land for land substitution, which is the land for land substitution, cannot be disposed of. Therefore, the defendant's act of leasing the land to the plaintiff shall not be null and void. Therefore, even if certain land in the land rearrangement zone is designated as the land for land substitution, the owner of the land shall not lose its ownership until the land is authorized and publicly notified, and the legal principle that the sale contract is null and void as a matter of course on the ground that the lease contract is not valid in disposing of the land for land substitution, and since the land for land substitution, which is the land substitution, which is the land for land substitution, which has been moved to the land for land substitution, cannot be viewed as being transferred to the land substitution.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges pursuant to Article 14 of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 406 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act by omitting an explanation of the grounds for appeal on the remaining land.

The judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Lee Young-sapon (Presiding Judge) Man-man Man-man Man-man