The case holding that the court failed to exhaust all necessary deliberations on the interest of the lawsuit seeking revocation of the land substitution determination disposition;

Even if the defendant completed the land readjustment project without going through the procedures prescribed in Articles 46 and 47 of the former Land Readjustment Project Act (Law No. 1822, Aug. 3, 1968)

1. Where the instant land is located without giving land substitution under the latter part of Article 53(2) of the same Act, and the Defendant fails to pay the liquidation money or is remarkably low because the payment deadline violates the Acts and subordinate statutes, the Defendant may seek compensation for damages due to a tort under the civil law against the Defendant;

2. Unless a replotting disposition takes effect after the date when the replotting disposition has been publicly announced, only the part claimed by the plaintiff shall be removed and the replotting disposition shall not be altered before the entire procedures for replotting have been taken again from the beginning

3. Even if the defendant's disposition of non-designated land for family affairs is revoked because it is illegal that the disposition of non-designated land without designating the land substitution and the liquidation money is not paid according to the legitimate procedure, it is questionable whether there is a benefit of lawsuit seeking cancellation of the land substitution disposition, since it does not automatically become invalid even when the land is determined as the object of the land substitution for

Article 46, 47, and the latter part of Article 53, Paragraph (2) of the former Land Readjustment Project Act

Supreme Court Decision 72Nu134 delivered on September 26, 1972; 73Nu110 delivered on October 8, 1974; 71Da390 delivered on May 24, 1972; 71Da25 delivered on March 14, 1972; 78Nu246 delivered on March 13, 1979

[Judgment of the court below]

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 3 others

Seoul High Court Decision 75Gu343 delivered on March 6, 1979

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

The grounds of appeal by the defendant's attorney are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, a land substitution plan shall be established in order to take a land substitution disposition for the land within the implementation district again other than the land that is authorized by the Minister of Construction and Transportation. The above land substitution plan shall specify the particulars of land substitution by lot of land substitution plan and the details of liquidation money classified by right under Article 54 of the same Act (illegal Article 46 Paragraph (1) and (2) of the same Act) and when an implementer intends to establish a land substitution plan, he shall obtain authorization from the Governor, etc., and when the implementer wishes to make the above land substitution plan, the related documents shall be made available to the general public for 14 days pursuant to Article 3 of the same Act, and such opinion shall be attached to the implementer, etc. at the time of application for the above land substitution plan (Article 47 Paragraph (1) and (2) of the same Act). In light of the evidence, the defendant, including the plaintiff's land, shall be exempted from the land substitution plan to be used for 17th anniversary of the above land substitution plan.

However, according to the records, this case's land has been used for public use since its land category has been changed from 1921 to 1946 to the road, bank, river, etc. It is also recognized by the court below. The land readjustment project for this case's land has been completed through the former Land Readjustment Project Act (No. 1822 of August 3, 1966) through the Urban Planning Act. Even if the defendant completed the land readjustment project in Zone 2 including this case's land without going through the above original adjudication procedure, this case's land has already been provided for the road, bank, river, etc. for 1921 to 1946, and the liquidation money for this case's land has not been paid for 170 square meters for the purpose of this case's land's land's 197th and 197th, and it is doubtful that the court below's decision not to pay liquidation money for this case's land or the liquidation money for this case's land's 20th and 97th.

This decision is with the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Ahn Byung-soo (Presiding Justice)