[토지인도,손해배상청구,본소및부당이득반환청구반소][집7민,299]
Effect of distributing farmland to another person's own land;
A. Even if a piece of farmland distribution is made by mistake that a prop's land within three information is a farmland which is not self-defensed by the government, if the distributed farmland is determined by the procedure under Article 32 of the Enforcement Decree of this Act, it cannot be said that the distribution is legally null and void.
(b) Where the ownership of farmland is returned due to the cancellation of a sales contract, the State shall acquire the ownership of the farmland if the ownership is not required by Section 2 of this Article, Section 51 of this Act, and Rule 51 of this Act, but the seller is not a farmer at the time of the cancellation of the contract, or the farmland owned by the seller exceeds three information due to the return of the land to the seller.
Article 6 of the Farmland Reform Act; Article 19(2) of the Farmland Reform Act; Article 22 of the Farmland Reform Act; Article 23 of the Farmland Reform Act; Article 24 of the Farmland Reform Act; Article 32 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act; Article 31 of the Enforcement Rule of the Farmland Reform Act; Article 31 of the Enforcement Rule
Kim Min-soo et al.
Kim Yong-Nam
Seoul High Court Decision 57No348 delivered on October 15, 1958, decided October 15, 1958
Since the original judgment is farmland which the defendant acquired from the plaintiff, etc. and thus its own land, it rejected the defendant's defense on the ground that it is no longer necessary to determine whether to distribute the land because it is reasonable to distribute the land to the plaintiff. However, even if the land distribution is made by mistake of the plaintiff's own land within 3 information, it cannot be said that the distribution of the farmland has become final and conclusive by the procedure under Article 32 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act. However, even if the land distribution is made by mistake of the plaintiff's own land within 3 information, it cannot be said that the interested party who has an objection to the distribution of the land can not return to the plaintiff's original decision because it can only seek correction of the land's ownership to the plaintiff, etc. after filing a lawsuit with the competent court, and it cannot be asserted that the plaintiff's ownership should not be restored to the plaintiff's original decision because it is not due to the plaintiff's mistake in interpreting the Farmland Reform Act, and that the land's ownership should not be restored to the plaintiff's original decision.
Justices Jeon Soo-tae (Presiding Justice) Man-sik (Presiding Justice)