[자경농지확인청구사건][고집1948민,384]
Whether the farmland is a self-arable farmland in case where a self-arable land is reported in the name of a farmland owner after the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act.
A farmer entitled to the top priority distribution under Article 11 of the Farmland Reform Act is a farmer who occupies and cultivates the relevant farmland as of the same date except that determined by the return, adjustment, or determination of farmland before the date of its promulgation, so long as the farmland right is not determined by the return, adjustment, or determination before the date of its promulgation, even if the farmland was reported in the name of the owner of the farmland by an agreement between the parties, the said farmland cannot be considered as farmland that is self-feasible and can not be purchased to the government pursuant to Article 5 (2) (b) of the same
Articles 5 and 11 of the Farmland Reform Act, Article 33 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act
Plaintiff
Defendant
The original judgment shall be revoked.
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff through the first and second trials.
The defendant's attorney is seeking a judgment of the Dong-dong area, and the plaintiff is seeking a judgment of dismissal of prosecution.
On May 22, 4279, the plaintiff purchased 1715 square meters from May 2, 200 to 571, 4279, the plaintiff's ground of claim and cultivated the same farmland from around March 3, 4280, and applied for distribution to the Busan City Farmland Committee since the so-called defendant cultivated the farmland from around 571, Dong-dong, Busan to the present time since the implementation of the Farmland Reform Act, and as a result, the plaintiff's objection was decided on December 31, 4290 as the plaintiff's own farmland at the same time as the plaintiff's own farmland at the same time, and thereafter, the plaintiff's objection was made to the farmland committee at the same time as the defendant's 4th Do-dong, which was the second 5th Do-dong, which was the second 5th Do-dong, and the decision of the farmland committee at this time was just, and the decision of the committee at this time was not made for the plaintiff's own farmland as a kind of administrative action at this time.
Defendant 1, as the answer, is the fact that the original farmland was owned by the Plaintiff and the fact that there was a decision as argued by each City/Do Farmland Committee, but Nonparty 6, from around 4290 to around 5 years of the short term, had been cultivated by entering into a farming contract with the Plaintiff, and the Farmland Reform Act was implemented, the Plaintiff was residing in the present address, and the Plaintiff would transfer the farmland to Defendant 1 without compensation when paying 50 percent of the agricultural products with the small payment for five years thereafter. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this determination and the distance between the Plaintiff’s address and the present farmland was about 30 percent, and therefore, it cannot be viewed as being entrusted management prohibited by the Farmland Reform Act, but the Plaintiff failed to perform his own farmland for five years in time of display, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot comply with the Plaintiff’s request for distribution of the farmland for the first time after the lapse of five years, and thus, the Plaintiff’s testimony to return the farmland to the Plaintiff for a short term of 1 to 40 years of the Plaintiff’s testimony.
Since the facts that the plaintiff's original farmland was owned by the plaintiff's farmland committee and that there was no dispute between the parties as to the facts that the plaintiff's decision was made, the defendant's entries in Gap evidence No. 1 can be acknowledged as his heir, and considering the contents in Eul evidence No. 2, the testimony of non-party No. 1, 2, 5, 7, and 8 of the court below's testimony, and the whole purport of his oral argument, the defendant's lawful possession and cultivation of the farmland at the time of enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act and the defendant's first instance decision No. 6 of the Civil Procedure Act cannot be acknowledged as the plaintiff's own farmland under the agreement with the plaintiff No. 9 and the defendant's first instance court's second instance court's ruling that the plaintiff's own farmland was not made for the same purpose as the plaintiff's own farmland at the time of enforcement of the law, and thus, the plaintiff's right to cultivate the farmland at the time of enforcement of the law can not be acknowledged as being distributed to the plaintiff No. 1 and the plaintiff's second.
Judges Cho Chang-seop (Presiding Judge)