[소유권이전등기말소등][집15(2)민,148]
Claim for the cancellation of ownership transfer registration that can be made by exercising compensation rights for farmland purchased by the State;
Even if the farmland which is not self-fluent due to the enforcement of this Act or the farmland which exceeds 3 information has been purchased by the State and lost its ownership, the former owner who purchased the farmland has the interest to claim the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration by means of exercising the compensation right against the State with respect to the purchased farmland.
Article 13 of the Farmland Reform Act
Plaintiff
Defendant 1 and three others
Seoul High Court Decision 65Na2377 decided March 8, 1967
Each appeal shall be dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.
(1) According to the court below's decision on the second ground of appeal by Defendant 2, Defendant 4, and Defendant 3's non-party 1's agent's request for the above facts-finding, the court below found that the above non-party 1 was an external fact to believe that the non-party 1 was an expression of the plaintiff's representative. However, in this case, the defendants knew that the above non-party 1 sold the real estate owned by the plaintiff to the defendants without any authority, and there was negligence on the part of the defendant 1 (the plaintiff's identity). According to the court below's judgment, the above non-party 1 (the plaintiff's identity) did not have authority to purchase the real estate under the above facts-finding's own name and the non-party 4's original judgment on the ground that the non-party 1 purchased the above real estate under the non-party 1's own name and the non-party 2's non-party 3's original judgment on the ground that there was no authority to purchase it.
(2) We examine the ground of appeal No. 1 by Defendant 2, Defendant 4, and Defendant 3 as to Defendant 3’s civil petition for appeal;
Even if farmland which is not self-employed or 3 information has been purchased from the State due to the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, and its ownership has been lost, the former owner has the interest in claiming the cancellation of ownership transfer registration by exercising compensation rights against the State with respect to the purchased farmland. Thus, since the former precedents are previous, the farmland among the real estate owned by the Plaintiff, which was considered to have been sold to the Defendants, exceeds 3 information, and even if the Plaintiff did not own or own 3 information at the time of enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, and even if it is assumed that the above farmland or the above 3 information exceeded 3 information was purchased from the State, the Plaintiff cannot be admitted to the argument that the Plaintiff may not claim the cancellation of ownership transfer registration against the Defendants for the purpose of exercising compensation rights against the purchased farmland, and even if the Plaintiff had actually created ownership to another person at the time of the purchase and sale contract in Seoul, it cannot be said that the Plaintiff cannot be viewed as the Plaintiff's assertion to the effect that the Plaintiff had no own own land or the above 3 information acquired it to the State.
Therefore, this case's ground of appeal is groundless, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating judges.
Supreme Court Judge Lee Young-su (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Judge) and Lee Dong-dong Gyeong-dong