Legal relations in case of failure to report the change of rights under Article 79 of the Land Readjustment Projects Act;

If a person who owns land or a building in a project execution district stipulated in Article 79 of the Land Readjustment Projects Act fails to report the reason to the project implementer even though there is a change in the owner of the land or building in the project execution district, the disposition of the change in rights due to the project execution cannot be asserted

Article 79 of the Land Readjustment Projects Act

Supreme Court Decision 73Da1973 Delivered on May 28, 1974

Plaintiff

Daegu City Litigation Performers Doo-gu

Daegu High Court Decision 79Gu157 delivered on February 20, 1980

Supreme Court Decision 79Nu192 Delivered on October 10, 1979

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

Where there is a change in the owner of land or building in a project implementation district stipulated in Article 79 of the Land Readjustment and Rearrangement Projects Act, the term "it is impossible to claim the effect of the change of right as to the disposition of project implementation or to deny the disposition against the previous owner of the right unless the project operator reports the reason to the project operator (see Supreme Court Decision 73Da1973 delivered on May 28, 1974).

In this case, the court below's decision was just in holding that the plaintiff's claim for correction was not reasonable, and there was no error in the misapprehension of legal principles or incomplete deliberation as it did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles, even though there was a change in rights among two parcels of land owned by the plaintiff in the land partition rearrangement project district in Daegu-gu, Daegu-dong, Daegu-dong, Busan-dong, which was implemented by the defendant, since the change was a replotting disposition before the change was not reported until the approval and announcement of the disposition of replotting was made.

After the above replotting disposition, the plaintiff's appeal cannot be deemed to be unlawful on the ground that the defendant made a reply to consult with the interested parties after the above replotting disposition, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence recognized by the court below as the date of approval of execution of the land partition rearrangement project prior to the execution by the defendant is not the one of May 16, 1972.

All the arguments are groundless.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yang Ho-ho (Presiding Justice)