Effect of a replotting disposition designating others who are not previous landowners as right holders.

If the previous land has been replaced solely or jointly with other land, the previous land owner shall acquire the ownership of the substitute, solely or jointly, in light of the fact that the replotting disposition is not the substitute land disposition, but the substitute land disposition, and even if the project operator has designated another person who is not the previous land owner as the substitute land owner, the previous land owner does not have any influence on the acquisition and exercise of the substitute land ownership.

Article 62 of the Land Partition Project Adjustment Act

Supreme Court Decision 78Nu134 Decided September 26, 1978

Plaintiff 1 and 2 others, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Attorney Yoon Young-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant and two others (defendant Incheon Metropolitan City et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 85Na227 delivered on December 12, 1985

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below, after compiling evidence, acknowledged that the above railroad was owned by Nonparty 1,026, including five parcels of land, which were the previous land prior to the disposition of replotting, such as ( Address 1 omitted), ( Address 2 omitted), ( Address 3 omitted), ( Address 4 omitted), and ( Address 5 omitted), which were the previous land prior to the disposition of replotting, and that the liquidation money was owned by Defendant 1,026, which was the aggregate of five parcels of land, and the Incheon City price was implemented for the land readjustment project, which was approved as the project of March 11, 1939, and used 7,228 square meters, including the above land, as a railroad site and a historical site, from the time when the Korea Railroad was constructing the main railway, and that the above land was used to be disposed of by the owner of the above land, and that the above land was not disposed of by the owner of the above land and the land was disposed of on April 9, 1963.

However, there may be cases where the so-called non-land substitution disposition, which does not designate the land due to the reasons falling under Articles 49 (Non-Designation of Land Substitution by Consent) and 53 (Measures against Specific Land) of the same Act, with respect to the land executed by a land substitution and rearrangement project at the time of the implementation of the above land rearrangement and rearrangement project. However, as long as the land is not designated as the land subject to the land substitution and rearrangement project under Article 54 of the above Act or as the land for public facilities under Article 63 of the above Act, it cannot be said that the above land is a land to be a land substitution and rearrangement project for a specific land, even if it is not a land for which the land is disposed of, and the new land lot number or land to which the land is assigned shall be a substitute land for another land, and if a land substitution and rearrangement project becomes final and conclusive without designating a substitute land for the previous land, the previous land owner shall lose its ownership, but if the previous land has the nature of the land substitution and rearrangement project, it shall be owned by the previous land owner and shall not be owned by the land owner.

Rather, if there was a disposition of designating the previous land as the reserved land for replotting, and the substitute land in the project area becomes final and conclusive without any change in the land readjustment project, and the previous land in this case becomes a joint land substitution registration through joint land substitution in the land cadastre or register, barring any special circumstance, shall be deemed to have been legally substituted.

In light of the above circumstances and records, the above land is included in the land substitution plan and the land is designated as the land substitution plan under the evidence No. 13 and No. 13-7, and the circumstances where the land substitution plan or the land substitution plan is modified cannot be found in the records. The court below supported the plaintiff's assertion that the above land was a joint land substitution rather than assist the fact-finding of the court below, and the witness of the first instance court No. 2 and non-party No. 3's testimony cannot be trusted in light of the execution process and character of the above land substitution project, and the plaintiff's above assertion continues to be consistent with the court below's reasoning, and even if the defendant Special Metropolitan City and Metropolitan City did not have any influence on the plaintiff's above assertion, it cannot be seen as the confession of the previous land substitution plan (see the previous land substitution plan's new land substitution plan's new land substitution plan's new land substitution plan's previous land substitution plan's new land substitution plan's new land substitution plan's new land substitution plan's new land substitution plan's previous land substitution plan's new land substitution plan.

Therefore, the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Jong-hee (Presiding Justice)