According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, since each of the lands of this case was cultivated by the non-party et al. at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, and the plaintiff did not own own money, each of the lands of this case was purchased from the State in accordance with the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act and the registration of ownership transfer was effective under the name of the defendant. Therefore, even though each of the lands was not distributed and the plaintiff did not receive compensation, there is no benefit or right to seek cancellation of each of the above registrations against the defendant, and the plaintiff did not have any assertion by the plaintiff's legal representative. The court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant requested the return of each of the lands of this case to the plaintiff and returned the compensation 153,849 (153,849 won was written in error) from the plaintiff to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff's legal representative's assertion that each of the lands of this case was impossible to distribute farmland, and the ownership of each of this case was returned to the plaintiff, and thus the plaintiff's assertion that each of this case was excluded from ownership transfer.

However, it is reasonable to interpret that farmland acquired by the Government under Article 5 of the Farmland Reform Act with a condition subsequent to the purchase of farmland by a person who does not own money under the provision of the same Act shall not be distributed. In full view of the purpose of the enactment of Article 1 of the Act on Special Measures for the Adjustment of Farmland Reform and the provisions of Article 2 of the same Act, etc., it is reasonable to interpret that farmland, other than farmland to be registered or distributed to farmers who are confirmed under the provisions of Article 2 of the Act on Special Measures for the Improvement of Farmland Act, is not distributed simultaneously with the enforcement of the above special measures (see Supreme Court Decision 74Da1390, Oct. 8, 1974). Thus, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the land was excluded from distribution because the defendant requested the return of compensation from the plaintiff and received the return of compensation from the plaintiff, and therefore, it is reasonable to judge whether there was any error in the law as to each of the above farmland, and if the farmland was not distributed to the plaintiff at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act.

Therefore, there is no need to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, and it is omitted, and the original judgment is reversed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yoon-Jeng (Presiding Justice)