(a) Validity of registration made for the previous land made before the registration of replotting after the public announcement of replotting disposition;

(b) Application for registration of the previous land and its method prior to registration of replotting;

(a) As the effect of a replotting disposition, since a replotting is deemed to have been viewed as the previous land from the day following the date of a public announcement of a replotting disposition, the previous landowner loses ownership of the previous land from the date of the public announcement of the replotting disposition and acquires ownership of the newly granted replotting at the same time, and therefore, if the validity as a registration of replotting exists, it shall be limited to a registration on the previous land at the time of a public announcement of a replotting disposition and there is no effect of a registration of the previous land made before

B. The registration of the previous land cannot be made before the completion of the registration of replotting after the public announcement of the replotting disposition, and in the case of the above application, the registration official shall dismiss the application in accordance with Article 5 (2) of the Registration of Real Estate Act.

Article 37 of the former Urban Planning Act (Act No. 983, Jan. 20, 1962); Article 62 of the Land Readjustment Project Act; Article 40 of the former Urban Planning Act (Act No. 983, Jan. 20, 1962); Article 65 (3) of the Urban Partition Adjustment Project Act; Article 55 (2) of the Registration of Real Estate Act

Supreme Court Order 69Da1688, 1689 Decided April 28, 1970, Supreme Court Order 63Ma11 Decided November 15, 1963

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and one other, Defendants Kim Jong-Un, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee

Seoul High Court Decision 81Na923 delivered on July 3, 1981

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The defendants' attorney's first ground of appeal is examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the non-party, who was registered as the non-party's ownership transfer on May 30, 1962, was not registered as the non-party's own land under the same name as the non-party's previous land ownership transfer registration on May 30, 1963. The non-party, who was registered as the non-party's new land ownership transfer registration on June 7, 1962, was not registered as the non-party's new land under the same name as the non-party's new land ownership transfer registration on May 30, 1963. The non-party, who was registered as the non-party's new land ownership transfer registration on June 7, 1962. The non-party, who was registered as the non-party's new land ownership transfer registration on April 25, 1963, was not registered as the non-party's new land ownership transfer registration on the non-party's previous land under the same name as the non-party's new land ownership registration.

However, as replotting disposition effects are deemed to have been conducted from the date following the date of public announcement of replotting disposition (see Article 37 of the Urban Planning Act, which was enacted on January 20, 1962, Article 62 of the Land Readjustment Projects Act), the previous landowner is deprived of ownership of the previous land and acquire ownership of the newly assigned land at the same time even if there is no land substitution registration, and therefore, the remaining effect of the land substitution registration is limited to the registration on the previous land at the time of public announcement of replotting disposition and the registration on the previous land at the time of public announcement is not effective as a registration of land substitution registration (see Article 69Da168, 1689, Apr. 28, 1970, which was made before and after the public announcement of replotting disposition). Thus, the previous land owner cannot be deemed to have been registered under Article 15 of the Land Expropriation Projects Act (see Article 983, Jan. 20, 196), Article 123 of the former Land Substitution Registration Act, which was enforced after public announcement, etc.

Therefore, the decision of the court below is reversed and remanded without any need to determine the remaining grounds for appeal. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)