In the case of the designation of the original land substitution area, a copy of the ownership of the previous land owner for the land substitution area;

In the case of the designation of the so-called original land substitution site which is sensitive to the site without changing the location of the land in accordance with the replotting plan, the ownership is not acquired even if the right to use and benefit from the so-called non-land substitution site is different from the location of the previous land and the right to use and benefit from the land which is the so-called non-land substitution site designated in a different place from the former land, unlike the legal principles, even if the ownership is not acquired, the previous land owner holds the previous right in the state where the right to dispose and the right to benefit from the land is not separated

Article 57 of the Land Readjustment Projects Act

Supreme Court Decision 71Da726 delivered on July 6, 1971 delivered on March 15, 1962, 71Da1789 delivered on November 30, 1971

Plaintiff 1 and four others, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellee

Defendant 1 and one other

Seoul High Court Decision 84Na1760 delivered on January 16, 1985

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

The plaintiffs' grounds of appeal are examined.

In the reasoning of the judgment, the court below held that the above buildings were originally owned by the non-party in Gyeonggi-do, but they were owned by the owner of each building (location omitted), and that the above land was registered for transfer of ownership from the above Gyeonggi-do to the above building on September 28, 197, and that the above land was not registered for change in the land scheduled for substitution, and that the land was not yet determined for replotting since it was designated as the land scheduled for substitution at 1,834.1 square meters in ○○ Department 1,834.

However, according to Gap evidence Nos. 10 and Gap evidence Nos. 12-1 and 2, which were not rejected by the court below, it is acknowledged that the above (location omitted), which is the land in this case, and △△△△△△ Group 1,834 square meters which are the previous land, are the original land and the so-called original land substitution area designated as the land substitution area without changing the location. Thus, in the case of the so-called original land substitution area which is smooth from the original land location without changing the location, the court below's right to use and benefit from the previous land is clearly reversed and remanded to the court below for the reasons that the previous land owner's right to use and benefit was not separated from the right to dispose of the land in this case and the right to use and benefit from the land in this case even before the completion of the replotting plan, and it is obvious that the previous land owner's right to use and benefit from this case's previous land cannot be removed from the original land substitution area's right to use and benefit from this case's land.

Justices Shin Jong-sung (Presiding Justice)

Since the official overseas business is during the business trip, it is impossible to sign and affix a seal. Justice Shin Jae-chul.