In cases where the market price of the land designated as the land scheduled for substitution is at least 1/3 to 1/2 of the previous land compared to that of the previous land, and the plaintiff has a solid building on the land that the plaintiff would be designated as the land, without designating the land, and designating the land at a place less than 130 to 170 meters away from the previous land, and did not compensate for the damage in money, such disposition of the land scheduled for substitution as

In a case where the market price of the land designated as the land scheduled for substitution is at least 1/3 to 1/2 of the market price of the previous land compared to that of the previous land, and there is a solid building on the land that the Plaintiff is entitled to be designated as the land, and the Plaintiff did not designate the land and did not compensate for the damage in money at a place less than 130 to 170 meters away from the previous land and did not compensate for the damage

Article 24 of the Shipbuilding Land Improvement Act, Articles 48 and 52 of the Land Readjustment and Rearrangement Projects Act

Plaintiff

Incheon Market

Seoul High Court Decision 67Gu160 delivered on October 29, 1968

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant's agent's appeal is examined.

According to the facts duly established by the court below, the plaintiff's previous disposition of land which was designated by the defendant's disposition of the land reserved for replotting (the lot number and code 114-1, and the lot number and code 116-10) in the same section and the previous land which was owned by the plaintiff (the address at the Gyeonggi-si, Incheon, 594 square) can be seen as covering 1.5 times to 2 times the value of the land reserved for replotting as above in the price, and there are no other facts as determined by the court below as to the circumstance that the plaintiff's previous land was designated as the land reserved for replotting, and since it was not the center of the above 7th land reserved for replotting, it is hard to view that the previous land was designated as the land reserved for replotting by the court below as the land reserved for replotting and the previous land owned by the plaintiff as the land reserved for replotting and the previous land owned by the plaintiff as the land reserved for replotting by the court below's decision that it was reasonable for the plaintiff to be designated as the land reserved for replotting.

The judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) of the Red Net Sheet