[소유권이전등기이행][집12(1)민,132]
The so-called "redeveloped farmland after the date of statutory promulgation" in Article 25-2 of the Farmland Reform Act, where distributed farmland has been re-developed as farmland after temporary burial due to flood and urbanization; and where farmland has been re-developed as farmland after the date of statutory promulgation.
Even if distributed farmland is buried as earth and sand due to flood and it is temporarily impossible to use it for farming landscape, it can not be called undeveloped land.
Article 25-2 of the Farmland Reform Act, Article 16 of the Farmland Reform Act, Article 19(2) of the Farmland Reform Act
Implied Scence
Republic of Korea and two others
Daejeon District Court Decision 62Na1117 delivered on September 27, 1963
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
The gist of the grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s Attorney is as follows:
The farmland of this case was naturally purchased from the State through the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") and distributed to the actual farmer, but the farmland of this case was reclaimed to be used for the purpose of using as farmland the farmland for a long time since it became a flood burial site prior to ten years. Therefore, the farmland of this case constitutes the reclaimed farmland after the date of legal tolerance under the latter part of Article 25-2 of the Act. Therefore, the farmland of this case is excluded from the application of Article 16 of the Act and the contract for the sale of a part of this farmland is not subject to Article 19 (2) of the Act, but there is an error of error in the misapprehension of the Farmland Reform Act.
However, the farmland stipulated in Article 2 of the Act should be at the time of the enforcement of the Act, and it cannot be said that the farmland is changed not to what is prescribed in the Act but to undeveloped land, only on the ground that the farmland is buried as a soil and sand due to flood thereafter, and it is not permanently permanent (the fact that the farmland is later reclaimed and currently used as farmland can not be used in the field of appeal) or temporarily.
Therefore, it should be interpreted that the disposal act such as selling and selling donation prior to the completion of redemption is limited by Article 16 of the Act, and that Article 19(2) of the Act is applicable to disposal under the condition that the completion of redemption is suspended. Therefore, the opposing opinion is an independent opinion that criticizes the original judgment and it cannot be accepted.
Therefore, this appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. The burden of litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff pursuant to Articles 95 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.
Justices of the Supreme Court Dog-gu (Presiding Judge) Dog-Jak and Mag-gu Mag-gu