[소유권이전등기말소][집19(3)민,168]
(a) The distribution of farmland to a person who is not an actual farmer is also valid;
B. The method of title trust in farmland distribution is null and void.
The repayment loan for the distribution of farmland takes effect when it is paid to the competent area, and whether and when it is paid to the bank designated from the competent area, there is no influence on the payer.
Article 11 of the Farmland Reform Act
67Da1836 delivered on October 4, 1967
Plaintiff
Defendant 1 and one other
Seoul Civil Area, Seoul High Court Decision 67Na2821 delivered on August 25, 1971
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
The ground of appeal No. 1 by the Plaintiff’s attorney is examined.
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below decided that the real estate of this case was originally owned by Japan and treated as farmland devolving after August 15, 200. The plaintiffs cultivated farmland belonging to 3,980 square meters and 4,00 square meters in Yangyang-dong, Yeongdeungpo-gu, in addition to the land of this case, and the lease contract for the farmland reverted to "new Corporation", which had been managed before the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, was limited to 3,000 per capita, and the plaintiff entered into a lease contract for the land of this case and completed the transfer of ownership or transfer of unique shares in the same defendant's future after filing an application for allocation with the same person and full payment of the prescribed repayment fee was completed. Thus, since there was a disposition of distribution to Defendant 1 who did not actually cultivate the land of this case at the time of distribution of farmland, and as long as there is no ground for invalidation, it cannot be concluded that the trustee's act of distribution in the name of this case is not valid until the land of this case is revoked by legitimate distribution.
We examine the second ground for appeal.
According to the records and reasoning of the judgment of the court below, since the registration of transfer of ownership or co-ownership right due to the completion of the repayment made in the name of defendant Kim Jong-tae's name is merely a title trust, the plaintiff has the same defendant's seal, and thus, the plaintiff was given a letter to the effect that at any time, it would be better through the registration of transfer of ownership or co-ownership right in the name of the plaintiff according to the plaintiff's convenience, the testimony of the court of first instance consistent with the relocation letter was rejected, and that the plaintiff had the same seal as the defendant, which was insufficient to recognize the plaintiff's assertion,
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Park Jae-dong (Presiding Judge)