[소유권이전등기말소][집15(3)민,189]
The validity of a disposition to distribute farmland to a person who has not actually cultivated has become final and conclusive and then the State has once again distributed the farmland to another person.
Even if a disposition of distributing farmland to a person who has not actually cultivated, such disposition is an effective disposition of distributing farmland until the disposition is revoked by legitimate objection, unless there is a reason to invalidate the disposition as a matter of law.
Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act Article 32
Plaintiff
School of East ASEAN;
Busan District Court Decision 66Na231 delivered on June 30, 1967, Busan District Court Decision 66Na231 delivered on June 30, 1967
We reverse the original judgment.
The case shall be remanded to Busan District Court Panel Division.
The grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 by the plaintiff's attorney are examined.
In distributing farmland as farmland pursuant to the provisions of the same Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, a person who has an objection to the distribution disposition shall raise an objection to the distribution disposition within the period stipulated in Article 32 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and if there is no objection, the farmland shall be finalized as distributed farmland, unless there is any objection. Even if there is a distribution disposition against a person who did not actually cultivate at the time of distribution of farmland, as long as there is no reason to invalidate the distribution disposition, the distribution disposition against the person who did not actually cultivate the farmland shall be valid until the disposition is revoked by legitimate objection. On the other hand, as long as the farmland distribution disposition becomes final and conclusive, the State shall become an unentitled person, and as long as the farmland distribution disposition becomes final and conclusive, the State shall make the distribution of farmland to another person is an invalid farmland disposition.
However, according to the testimony of the non-party witness of the first and the second instance court and the whole purport of the parties' arguments in the official document of this case, the plaintiff can be acknowledged as having completed the repayment to the state as the receiver of the farmland in this case and the state has received the farmland in this case. Thus, the plaintiff shall not be presumed to have received the farmland in this case. In this case, if the distribution of farmland in this case was implemented by legitimate procedure under the Farmland Reform Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and if the farmland was implemented by legitimate procedure, the court below should have judged the plaintiff's right to claim first after making a further deliberation as to whether the distribution of farmland in this case became final and conclusive, and should should have judged the plaintiff's right to claim. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff received the farmland in this case was distributed without examining the procedure of this procedure, and without referring to the deliberation as to the non-party witness's testimony, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim for the final appeal with the reason that the non-party witness's testimony was in violation of the legal principles as to the farmland distribution and incomplete or the rules of evidence.
Therefore, the original judgment is reversed, and the original judgment is to be deliberated and judged again, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Judge Do-dong (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court