(a) Whether the owner of the land for which the actual project work has not been performed in the land readjustment project district bears the cost;

(b) Requirements for imposing settlement money

(c) Validity of imposition of liquidation money based on the time when the land value is assessed in error;

(d) Standard period for calculation of liquidation money under the former Land Readjustment Project Act (Act No. 2848, Dec. 31, 1975);

(a) In the implementation of a land readjustment project, even though the actual project was implemented only for the district except for a specific district within the zone, the land readjustment project aimed at enhancing the utility of the land, as well as contributing to the sound development of the city and the promotion of public welfare, and it is natural that the cost required for the project should be borne jointly by the former land owner in the project zone.

B. Liquidation money prescribed by the Land Rearrangement and Rearrangement Project Act is intended to be settled by collecting the excess or excess amount from the person who gains profit in order to fairly and without excess or excess of unfair activities arising from a replotting disposition regarding the land in the project district, as well as to appropriate it to the project cost required for the compartmentalization and rearrangement project. Thus, if it is evident that the land in this case is legally incorporated into the Rearrangement and Rearrangement Project District and the substitute lot area delivered to the plaintiffs exceeds the area of the right to be granted to the plaintiff, etc.

C. Even if a disposition imposing a liquidation amount cannot be deemed to have become null and void as a matter of course or to have become a ground for revocation of the entire imposition of the liquidation amount, and only the portion exceeding the liquidation amount calculated on the basis of a legitimate evaluation period shall be revoked.

D. According to the provisions of Article 52 (2) of the Land Rearrangement and Rearrangement Projects Act (Act No. 2848 of Dec. 31, 1975) prior to the newly established land substitution plan by Act No. 325 of Jan. 4, 1980, the calculation of liquidation money shall be based on the land value at the time of authorization of land substitution plan.

(a) Article 52(1) of the Land Readjustment Projects Act; Article 52(2)(d) of the same Act; Article 52 of the former Land Readjustment Projects Act (Act No. 2848, Dec. 31, 1975);

Plaintiff 1 and 33 others, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellee

Attorney Park Jae-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 81Gu399 delivered on July 28, 1982

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of the appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff, etc. and the defendant for each appeal.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to the ground of appeal by the Plaintiff, etc.

(1) With respect to the execution of a land readjustment project, the land readjustment project aimed at improving the utility of the land, as well as contributing to the sound development of the city, including the specific district, even though the land was actually incorporated into the above land. Therefore, it is natural that the cost required for the project should be borne jointly by the former land owners within the project zone. According to the facts duly determined by the court below, 68 private school personnel belonging to the non-party 2, including the plaintiff, etc., organized the land association around 1969 and constructed a private road at 17.2% of the land for which the land was newly incorporated into the above land and constructed at 17.2% of the land for which the land was owned by the non-party 2, and the land was constructed at 17.2% of the land for which the land was constructed at 17.2% of the land for which the land was newly constructed at 2,000 square meters and the land for which the land was constructed at 17.2% of the land for which the land was constructed at 17.

(2) On the other hand, the settlement money as prescribed by the Cleanup and Rearrangement Act is intended to be settled by collecting the excess or excess amount from the person who realized the benefits in order to fairly and without any excessive or excessive business activities arising from the replotting disposition as to the land in the project district, and delivering them to the person who suffers losses. As it is evident that the land in this case is legally incorporated into the rearrangement and rearrangement project district and the substitute lot area delivered to the plaintiff et al. is in excess of the original area of the right to be delivered to the plaintiff et al. as stated in the former part, the disposition imposing the settlement money in this case shall meet the legitimate requirements. In determining the joint settlement rate applicable to the land in this case, the land in the project district shall be divided into Grade 3, but the land in the ○○ Housing Complex shall be divided into Grade 1, which is recognized as Class 1, and the land in this case applied the highest reduction rate of 21.27 percent which is the lowest among them, and it is therefore without merit

(3) In addition, even if the legal interpretation of the Land Price Act on the time of appraisal for the assessment of liquidation amount was wrong, it cannot be said that the disposition imposing liquidation amount is null and void as a matter of course, or that the disposition imposing liquidation amount becomes a cause of revocation in whole. In this regard, the court below's decision that rejected the primary claim of the plaintiff et al. and revoked only the portion exceeding the liquidation amount calculated based on the legitimate time of appraisal is justifiable.

(4) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below's determination of facts by the court below is just and it cannot be adopted because it did not criticize the confirmation of facts belonging to the fact-finding court's exclusive authority, as it did not err in the misapprehension of facts, since the road with 25 meters wide in the above drawing(a) was constructed prior to the execution of the land readjustment project in this case, and the road with 8 meters wide in the sign(c) display part of the above drawing(s) extension of 6 meters wide in the width was 8 meters wide, and it was difficult to pay a year for the road extended 2 meters wide in this case, and it became final that 17.2 percent was deducted from the extension of the road.

(5) Ultimately, the Plaintiff’s appeal is without merit, since it is neither reasonable nor acceptable.

2. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

According to the provisions of Article 52 (2) of the Land Readjustment and Rearrangement Project Act (Act No. 3255 of Jan. 4, 1980) before this Act was newly established under Article 52 (2) of the Land Readjustment and Rearrangement Project Act (Act No. 2848 of Dec. 31, 1975), liquidation money shall be calculated based on the land price at the time of authorization of a land substitution plan. Thus, it is obvious that the court below should calculate liquidation money of this case based on the appraisal value of the land of this case as of Mar. 14, 1973, which is the date of authorization of the land substitution plan of this case, as of Jan. 4, 1980, the above provision of Article 325 (3) of the Land Readjustment and Rearrangement Project Act (Act No. 3255 of Jan. 4, 1980) is nothing more than that of this Act, and it is clear that the previous provision of this Act and its separate provision of replotting disposition should not be applied at the time of this Act.

3. Therefore, the appeal by the plaintiff, etc. of this case and each of the defendant is dismissed in all of the grounds for appeal. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff, etc. and the defendant, respectively. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)