The purpose of the Act is to prescribe the date of the administrative disposition for the designation of reserved land.

"Date of administrative disposition" in the designation and disposition scheduled for replotting is not the date when the disposition itself is established, but it is interpreted as the date when the owner of the land concerned gives written notice to the owner of the land so that he/she can know of the fact of the disposition, i.e. the date when the designation and disposition takes effect.

Article 3 of the Sub-Appeal Act

Plaintiff

Head of Gun;

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

On January 22, 1968, the disposition of replotting taken by the defendant against the plaintiff's previous land of 15 square meters, 6th 6th son's 15th 6th son's 6th son's 48th 49th Do-ri.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

First, we examine the defendant's main defense of safety.

The defendant asserted that this case's administrative disposition was in January 22, 1968, and the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the non-party 1 on Sep. 5, 1969 even though the non-party 1 received the notice of designation of disposition of disposition of land substitution for replotting on Feb. 23, 1968. This case's lawsuit is illegal after one month from the date when the non-party 1 became aware of the administrative disposition, and three months from the date of the administrative disposition, and therefore, the lawsuit should be dismissed due to defects in the litigation condition. Thus, it cannot be viewed that the non-party 1, 2, 3, and 4's testimony and evidence 13's testimony were delivered to the plaintiff, or otherwise, it cannot be viewed that the non-party 5's testimony and evidence No. 77 were not disputed and that the non-party 1's notification of the above disposition of land substitution for replotting for replotting for the purpose of interpreting the above disposition was made within 196 months from the date of non-permission.

The following arguments are examined.

According to the above 168.1.22, the defendant's construction of the above 3-1-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-6-7-7-7-7-7-6-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-77-7-7-77-77-7-77-77-77-77-77-7-7-7-7-7-7

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jae-ho (Presiding Judge)