207Da61205 Cancellation of ownership transfer registration.

Seoul Metropolitan Government

Representative of the Market Oralism

Law Firm Doz.

[Defendant-Appellee]

Seocho-gu

Representative of the Gu;

Attorney Lee Jae-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 2006450125 Decided July 26, 2007

July 24, 2008

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The land readjustment project under Article 63 of the former Land Readjustment Projects Act (amended by Act No. 6252 of Jan. 28, 200) is a project for the exchange, division, and consolidation of land, other division, alteration of land category or form and quality, or alteration of public facilities, which is conducted for the enhancement of utility as a site, for the improvement of public facilities. All land incorporated within the execution district shall be treated as one and the necessary land shall be determined first, and a replotting disposition shall be imposed to designate the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay or reserved land, and the ownership and other rights of the previous land shall be moved to the land after rearrangement. Thus, if the land is incorporated into the execution district of the land rearrangement project under Article 63 of the former Land Readjustment Projects Act, its legal relationship shall be understood as related to the said land readjustment project; in particular, if the land of public facilities becomes new due to the execution of a legitimate land readjustment project, its ownership shall be reverted to the State or local government according to the classification of the manager of the land under Article 63 of the same Act.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the court below adopted the land readjustment method under the former Act on the Land Readjustment and Rearrangement Projects by way of the specific implementation of the development project, even though the development project itself was formulated based on the former Housing Site Development Promotion Act, and as long as a land substitution plan is established and approved for the whole land in the implementation zone including the land in this case and a land substitution plan and a land substitution disposition and public announcement thereof are completed through the designation of land substitution, the relation of the right to the land incorporated within the implementation zone should be grasped in relation to the said land readjustment project. Thus, Article 63 of the former Land Readjustment and Rearrangement Projects Act should be the basis of the said land readjustment project, and therefore, the said land readjustment project shall be implemented in accordance with the said land readjustment project.

The land in this case, which was a new site for public facilities (park) within its implementation zone, is the following day after the public notice of a disposition of replotting was made and is amended by Act No. 4004 of April 6, 198 and 198.

5. After the enforcement of the former local autonomy system under Article 1 of the former Local Autonomy Act, the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant, which was completed on the ground that the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant was completed without any legal cause, and thus, the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant, which was completed on the ground that it was transferred from the plaintiff pursuant to Article 5 of the former Local Autonomy Act and the guidelines for adjustment of property based on Article 5 of the former Local Autonomy Act, was null and void, since it was not yet owned by the plaintiff at the time of April 30, 1988.

The judgment of the court below is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the law on the date of attribution of the park ownership.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the 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 Cha Han-sung

Justices Shin Hyun-chul

Justices Kim Ji-hyung of the District Court

Justices Jeon Soo-ahn