2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

A. On December 14, 1957, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on the land before the subdivision in order to December 14, 1957 as the District Court, Macheon Registry, received No. 2610 on December 14, 1957, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on July 22, 1976 with respect to the land before subdivision in the name of Non-Party KimA on July 22, 1976.

B. The land before subdivision was restored on March 31, 1965, and was converted into the area of 6,337 square meters on May 1, 1979, and each land listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each land of this case”) was later changed on the grounds of subdivision and change of administrative district.

C. Each of the instant lands was sold in succession, and thereafter, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer based on land expropriation on September 11, 2015 with respect to the land indicated in attached Form 1, and completed the registration of ownership transfer based on the consultation on public land acquisition on October 17, 2013, and completed the registration of ownership transfer based on the consultation on public land registration on February 13, 2014 with respect to the land indicated in attached Form 3.

D. Meanwhile, the distribution farmland register prepared by the enforcement of the former Farmland Reform Act (amended and enforced by Act No. 31 of Jun. 21, 1949, which was repealed by Act No. 4817 of Dec. 22, 1994, Article 2 of the Addenda to the Farmland Act (Act No. 4817 of Dec. 22, 1994) was written respectively as the "laver acquisition" and the "Compensationer". However, the distribution KimA renounced the repayment of the land before the division.

E. According to the case of the issuance of land price securities with respect to the land before subdivision, the order for payment of compensation, the land price statement, the application for compensation, the application form, the land price confirmation table by prop farmland, the compensation ledger, the ledger of land price securities, the ledger of issuance of land price securities, the ledger of issuance of land price securities, the ledger of restoration of cadastral records, the ledger of cadastral recovery, the protocol of land cadastre, the land cadastre and the register of comparison of the registry, the entry into the redA with respect to the applicant, the prop, the person to be compensated, and the owner, the address of which is

D. The Plaintiff’s prior RedA died on August 13, 1992, and accordingly, the Plaintiff, RedA, RedA, RedA, RedA, RedA, RedA, HongA, and RedA shared inheritance of the property of HongA. On June 10, 2015, the co-inheritors jointly agreed on the division of inherited property with the purport that the Plaintiff is the sole heir.

2. Determination

A. Determination on the cause of the claim

(1) Relevant legal principles

Article 2 of the former Farmland Reform Act (amended by Act No. 1065, Jan. 14, 1994; Act No. 27649, Sept. 15, 1995; Act No. 2065, Jan. 28, 2008; Act No. 2065, Jan. 28, 2008; Act No. 2065, Apr. 29, 2007; Act No. 20655, Jan. 28, 2007; Act No. 2064, Jan. 26, 2007; Act No. 20655, Jan. 28, 2007; Act No. 20655, Jan. 26, 2007; Act No. 20653, Jan. 28, 201).

(2) Determination

(A) According to the above facts finding and Gap evidence Nos. 16, and the fact finding to the head of Jongno-gu in this court, the following facts are comprehensively taken into account: (a) the Plaintiff’s prior RedA and the owner of the farmland distribution-related documents and compensation-related documents on each of the land of this case are identical to "AAAAAA"; and (b) the Plaintiff’s prior redA’s legal domicile is written as 129-1; and (c) the Plaintiff’s birth is written as 127-2 at the time of the enforcement of the former Farmland Reform Act; (d) the Plaintiff’s birth is written as 127-2 at the time of the enforcement of the former Farmland Reform Act; and (e) there is no other evidence to acknowledge that there was another person other than the HongA, the Plaintiff’s prior owner, and the owner of the farmland distribution-related documents and compensation-related documents on each of the land of this case and the Plaintiff’s redA and the Plaintiff’s redA.

(B) Furthermore, in full view of the overall purport of the arguments in the facts as seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s prior RedA acquired ownership from the person under the title of the circumstance by purchasing each of the instant land, etc. However, the fact that KimA, who received each of the instant land distributed, renounced the repayment of the land distribution, is as seen earlier. As such, each of the instant land was determined not to be distributed after the lapse of three years from the date of enforcement of the Farmland Act as stipulated in Article 3 of the Addenda of the Farmland Act, and accordingly, the Defendant’s purchase disposition was revoked. Accordingly, each of the instant land was deemed to have been reverted to the Plaintiff’s prior owner.

(C) Therefore, the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the defendant with respect to each of the land of this case and the registration of ownership transfer that has been completed in succession thereafter is null and void. Thus, the defendant is liable to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer on each of the land of this case to the plaintiff, who is the inheritor of HongA

B. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

(1) First, the Defendant asserts that the acquisition by prescription on December 14, 1967, of the registry was completed, since the Defendant: (a) completed the registration of preservation of ownership on each of the instant land on December 14, 1957; and (b) occupied without negligence in peace and openly with the intent of possession; (c) the acquisition by prescription on December 14, 1967 was completed. However, as the State’s purchase of farmland pursuant to the former Farmland Reform Act is intended to distribute it to its own farmers, etc.; and (d) if non-distribution becomes final and conclusive, it is anticipated that it should be returned to the original owner; and (e) the possession of the purchased farmland by the State cannot be deemed as an independent possession with the intent to avoid the control of the true owner; and (e) it shall be deemed as an independent possession with the nature of the title (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da15094, July 28, 2011)

(2) Next, the Defendant asserts to the effect that the RedA paid 12.077 grains as compensation for the land before subdivision, and that the present value of the valley paid was KRW 4,811,470 (12.07 x 160 x 2,490 x 160 x 2,490). Accordingly, the Defendant is obliged to implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer of each of the instant land at the same time as the Plaintiff was returned the said compensation from the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant’s claim for the refund of compensation has expired after the ten-year extinctive prescription.

In this regard, if the conditions for rescission, which the Defendant’s purchase of farmland under the former Farmland Reform Act does not distribute to the Defendant’s purchase of farmland, are fulfilled and the effect thereof is lost, each of the duty to restore the farmland is deemed to have a simultaneous performance relationship (see Supreme Court Decision 68Da36, Apr. 23, 1968). However, the Defendant’s claim for return of the above compensation against the Plaintiff is extinguished by prescription if it is not exercised for five years under the National Finance Act as the State’s right to the payment of money, and it is apparent that the extinctive prescription has expired after the lapse of five years from the time when the Defendant’s purchase measure was released. As such, the Defendant’s above assertion

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.