1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The land prior to the land substitution was owned by the State (hereinafter “the land prior to the land substitution”), but around 1950, it was distributed to I (the Plaintiff stated “D” in the instant complaint but appears to be a clerical error) in accordance with the Farmland Reform Act, and I completed reimbursement in accordance with the Farmland Reform Act on July 30, 1954 and acquired ownership.

After that, I sold land to E before replotting, E sold land to F, and the Plaintiff was donated by F on January 2, 1996.

Land before replotting was registered in the name of the State on July 12, 1982.

B. The land at Seoyang-si was substituted by the land prior to the replotting on March 3, 1995 pursuant to the H housing site development project (hereinafter “instant housing site development project”) which was implemented by the Defendant’s (ju) well-being comprehensive development (hereinafter “project implementer”) and approved by the Defendant.

After replotting, the registration of ownership preservation is made in the name of the State even after replotting. The land was finally registered in accordance with the judgment of Changwon District Court Decision 9Da931 delivered on October 28, 1999.

C. On March 6, 1995, the registration of ownership preservation was made in the name of the defendant on March 6, 1995, after the substitution was made according to the instant housing site development project for the B Park 1557.9 square meters in sealed cities

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 and 8's statements, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion disregards the procedures for authorization of a replotting plan, which is the preceding disposition, and received a replotting disposition from an implementer only.

The land before replotting is not included in the land substitution plan finalized around May 6, 1993, and it was added to the land substitution plan after being added without going through the procedure of change of the land substitution plan.

Therefore, a replotting disposition for land before replotting is invalid.

Even if a replotting disposition has the effect of a land prior to replotting, the land prior to replotting (740 square meters) does not apply to the depreciation rate on the ground that it is a State-owned land, and thereafter land (370 square meters) and B.