The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance.

1. The court's explanation concerning this case is to correct "land of this case" as "land of this case" in the third Hah eight parallels of the judgment of the court of first instance. Paragraph (2) is the same as the statement of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the judgment of this court to "the land of this case". Thus, the court's explanation concerning this case is to accept it as is

2. The plaintiff asserts in this court that "the land in this case has been registered for replotting with the approval of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor's land substitution plan pursuant to Article 47 (1) of the Land Readjustment Project Act, and the defendant shall be deemed to have succeeded to Seoul Special Metropolitan City and acquired possession thereof."

The above assertion made by the plaintiff in this court does not differ from the contents of the plaintiff's assertion in the first instance court. Even if the evidence submitted in the first instance court was examined, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant occupied and used the land in this case, and on the other hand, it cannot be recognized that the State or a local government occupied the land in a replotting disposition solely on the ground that the land allocated to the previous landowner was used as a road according to a replotting disposition. Thus, the first instance court's

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance, which dismissed the plaintiff's claim, is justifiable. Thus, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.