[1] The validity of a disposition of replotting, which is not subject to the land substitution plan or is not subject to the land substitution plan (negative)

[2] The case reversing the judgment of the court below that found the guidance and disposition justifiable without examining whether a replotting disposition, which forms the basis for the guidance and disposition, is in accordance with the authorized replotting plan

[1] In the former Land Readjustment Project Act (amended by Act No. 3255 of Jan. 4, 1980), a replotting disposition, the contents of which are either not according to the land substitution plan or are irrelevant to the land substitution plan, shall be null and void.

[2] The case reversing the judgment of the court below that found the guidance and disposition justifiable without examining whether a replotting disposition, which forms the basis for the guidance and disposition, is in accordance with the authorized replotting plan

[1] Article 46 of the former Land Readjustment Projects Act (amended by Act No. 3255 of Jan. 4, 1980), Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act [2] / [2] Articles 13, 34, 39, 46, 47(1), 55, 61, and 62 of the former Land Readjustment Projects Act, Article 3 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act, Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act [1]

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 78Nu170 delivered on August 22, 1978 (Gong1978, 11050) Supreme Court Decision 85Nu603 delivered on March 10, 1987 (Gong1987, 654) Supreme Court Decision 89Nu4673 delivered on October 10, 1990 (Gong190, 2279) Supreme Court Decision 92Da14878 delivered on May 27, 1993 (Gong193Ha, 1857)

Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Chang-won, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

State Mayor (Law Firm 21st century General Law Office, Attorneys Lee Sung-mup et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Supreme Court Decision 95Nu10020 Delivered on October 11, 1996

Gwangju High Court Decision 96Gu3394 delivered on March 21, 1997

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, on March 22, 1994, the court below ordered the plaintiff to take a land-based land-based land (location 1 omitted) of 38 square meters (hereinafter referred to as "the building of this case") which is owned by the plaintiff on March 22, 1994, to remove part of the (location 2 omitted) road of 1,014 square meters (hereinafter referred to as "road of this case") adjacent to the land of this case, which is owned by the non-party 1 and the non-party 58.2 square meters (hereinafter referred to as "the land of this case") located within 18.5 square meters of the land of this case (hereinafter referred to as "the land of this case"), which was constructed without permission to occupy and use the land of this case on the 4.5 square meters of the land of this case or the land of this case, which was owned by the non-party 1 and the land of this case (hereinafter referred to as "the land of this case") which was owned by the non-party 9.

2. However, in the former Land Readjustment Projects Act (amended by Act No. 3255 of Jan. 4, 1980; hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), land substitution disposition, the contents of which are neither subject to land substitution plan nor non-land substitution plan, applicable to this case, is null and void (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 78Nu170, Aug. 22, 1978; 85Nu603, Mar. 10, 1987; 89Nu4673, Oct. 10, 199; 92Da14878, May 27, 1993). Thus, in the case of determining or modifying a land substitution plan in the urban land readjustment project implemented, land substitution disposition, which is not owned by the plaintiff as part of the previous land substitution disposition, is not subject to authorization of the land in this case as part of the land substitution plan as part of the land owned by the plaintiff in this case.

3. However, we cannot accept the judgment of the court below that held that the road of this case was reverted to Jeju through the public notice of a replotting plan under the authorized replotting plan for the following reasons.

In light of the circumstances revealed by the reasoning of the judgment below and records, namely, ① the Minister of Construction and Transportation (the Minister of Construction and Transportation) on December 24, 1968 with authorization for the implementation of the project plan of this case, which was transferred to daily prices, and ② the construction permission for the building of this case was completed on October 29 of the same year at the Plaintiff’s request. However, according to Articles 13, 34, and 39 of the Act, it is doubtful that the construction permission for the land of this case was not completed on October 29 of the same year after the date of the public announcement of the execution of the plan for the land substitution project of this case, which was determined by the local government as the implementer and the date of the public announcement of the execution of the plan for the land substitution project of this case until the date of the public announcement of the land substitution disposition, the construction of the building of this case, which was in conflict with the above project plan of this case, may still interfere with the construction of the land of this case after the public announcement of the land substitution plan of this case.

In addition, the record reveals that the building of this case is the basis for surveying to clarify whether it is in conflict with the road of this case, and as to the land cadastral map of the land of this case and the land cadastral map of the road of this case, the plaintiff asserted that it was altered from the court below before remanding the case, and the related documents of this case have been kept for the defendant (record 273 through 291). Thus, the court below should submit the land substitution plan, namely, the land substitution plan which is the basis for the land substitution disposition of this case, which is included in the above related documents, and the land substitution plan which is the basis for the land substitution disposition of this case, which is the land substitution plan, approved as of December 30, 1969, which is the basis for the land substitution plan of this case, and the land substitution plan, which is the land substitution plan of this case, and the land substitution plan of this case, can easily be seen as being lawfully made in accordance with the above land substitution plan authorization.

4. Thus, the court below should have deliberated whether the disposition of replotting of this case on the land owned by the plaintiff and its neighboring land prior to replotting conform to the contents of the above replotting plan approved as of December 30, 1969, and should have tried to judge the legitimacy of the disposition of this case, but did not deliberate on the legitimacy of the disposition of this case, and judged that the disposition of this case was legitimate. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the validity of replotting disposition against the replotting plan and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

The appeal pointing this out is with merit.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)