[소유권이전등기절차이행][미간행]
In a case where the documents, such as an application for compensation, prepared at the time of the enforcement of the former Farmland Reform Act, indicate that the owner of the land before subdivision was Eul, and that Eul was issued the land price securities from the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the case affirming the judgment below which held that, even if there exists a separate person in the previous land, the ownership of Eul was held at least at the time of the enforcement of the former Farmland Reform Act, and that each of the previous land divided from the previous land was returned to Gap et al., who was the original owner Eul et al., due to the cancellation of the purchase measures by the State, and the determination that each land divided from the previous land was not distributed ultimately, the registration of preservation of ownership, which was completed in the name of the State, is null and void, and
Article 186 of the Civil Act
Plaintiff 1 and six others (Attorney Go-won, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Republic of Korea (Attorney Lee Jae-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant)
Seoul Central District Court Decision 2010Na14154 Decided October 15, 2010
All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found facts as stated in its adopted evidence, and determined that the owners of the 616th (hereinafter referred to as the "previous 2nd (hereinafter referred to as the "previous 1st) and 759th (hereinafter referred to as the "previous 2nd (number 1 omitted) prior to the division in the relevant documents, such as an application for compensation and a compensation ledger, prepared at the time of the enforcement of the former Farmland Reform Act (repealed by Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Addenda to the Farmland Act, Act No. 4817, Dec. 22, 1994; hereinafter referred to as the "former Farmland Reform Act"), were the Nonparty, who was the owner of the previous 1st (hereinafter referred to as the "previous 2nd) and the 759th (hereinafter referred to as the "former 2nd) prior to the division, were the Nonparty, who was the owner of the previous 1st)’s land, and thus, the Defendant was not obligated to recover the ownership of each of the Defendant’s land before the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act.
In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above measures of the court below are just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by violating the law of logic and experience and exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, or by exceeding
In addition, the argument that the land divided into the previous two lands was reverted to the State in accordance with the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes as the land incorporated into the Han River basin of the National River River shall not be a legitimate ground for appeal, as a new argument that the Defendant was going to the final appeal.
Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Jeon Soo-ahn (Presiding Justice)