In violation of the Land Readjustment Project Act and scope of compensation

In the execution of a land readjustment project, in case where the defendant did not designate the land as the reserved land and did not designate the liquidation money with regard to the land in this case, it violated the Land Readjustment Project Act, and thus, the defendant is liable for damages arising therefrom, and the amount of damages that the defendant is liable to compensate is expected to be paid by the defendant in the land substitution plan.

Article 68 of the Land Readjustment Projects Act

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Attorney Lee-ho-gun, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 76Na852 delivered on January 29, 1980

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant's attorney are examined.

With respect to No. 1:

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below presumed that the plaintiffs registered the land of this case in 1970 and presumed that they were owned by the plaintiffs. Meanwhile, as to the defendant's assertion that the plaintiffs illegally purchased the land of this case around 1936, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion on the ground that there is no evidence to support that the defendant purchased the land of this case or the plaintiffs' registration was made illegally, in addition to the witness's testimony that the plaintiffs illegally completed the above registration, except for the witness's testimony, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the defendant continued to dispose of the land of this case without designating the land of this case and without designating the land of this case, and the defendant's execution of the land readjustment project violates the Land Readjustment Project Act, and therefore the defendant's above execution of the land readjustment project is in violation of the Land Readjustment Project Act, and therefore the defendant is liable for damages suffered by the plaintiffs. The court below' findings of fact or legal judgment by the court below is justified and it cannot be said that there is any error in the misapprehension of facts

With respect to the second ground:

In such a case, the amount of damages that the defendant is liable to compensate for to the plaintiffs shall be the expected amount when the defendant assumed to pay the liquidation money in the land substitution plan, and it shall not be calculated at the time of authorization of the land substitution plan, as argued in the paper, as of the time of implementation of the land substitution plan, so it cannot be employed to argue that there is a misapprehension of legal principles in the judgment below on the premise that the amount of liquidation money should be calculated at the time of authorization of the land substitution plan. Since the land substitution project of this case has already been completed in December 30, 1974, the court below has determined that the land substitution project of this case has already been completed due to the public announcement of land substitution disposition in December 30, 1974, it cannot be affected by Article 2 of the Addenda

Therefore, the arguments are without merit, and this appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Jeong Tae-won (Presiding Justice)