[소유권이전등기말소][집16(3)민,042]
Cases where there is an error of misapprehending the legal principles on the distribution of farmland by replotting;
The previous landowner has the right to use and profit from the land as the land as the land as the land as the land as the land as the land as the land as the land as the land as the land as the land as the land as the land as the land as the land as the land as the land as the land as the land as the land as the land as the land as the land as the land as the land as the land as the land as the land as the land as the land
Article 35 of the Urban Planning Act
Supreme Court Decision 67Da1224 delivered on September 5, 1967
Plaintiff
Defendant 1 and two others
Seoul High Court Decision 64Na1280 delivered on July 23, 1965, Seoul High Court Decision 64Na1280 delivered on July 23, 1965
The original judgment shall be reversed, and
The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.
The Defendants’ ground of appeal is examined. According to the reasoning of the original judgment, the lower court determined that: (a) 10 square meters prior to the date of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (number 1 omitted); (b) 257 square meters prior to 9 square meters prior to (number 3 omitted); (c) 430 square meters prior to (number 4 omitted); (d) the land was originally owned by the Plaintiff; and (e) as a result of the land substitution rearrangement project, the land lot number of each of the above lands was 89.7 square meters prior to the first drawing in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Dongdaemun-gu, which was the land substitution lot number of 131 square meters; (b) 362 square meters prior to the said land lot number in 129 square meters; and (c) the said land substitution land was omitted due to the change of the ownership number of the above land to the said land (number 6 omitted); and (d) the said land substitution land was omitted due to the change of the land lot number of the above land to 9.
However, if the previous land owner has the right to use and profit from the land as the land as the land as the land as the land as the substitution plan has been disposed of, and if the previous land owner has cultivated the land as the land as the land as the land as the land as the land as the land as the substitution plan has been implemented by the Farmland Reform Act, there is no change in the ownership of a distributor even if the land as the land as the land as the land as the substitution plan has been completed after the land as the land as the land substitution plan has been completed, and the previous land owner cannot acquire the ownership of the land as to the land as the land as the land as the land as the land as the previous land owner, who is the land as the land as the land as the land as the land as the substitution plan, was cultivated and distributed the land as the land owner did not have any influence on the ownership of the previous land as the land as the land to the land as the land as the land substitution plan did not have any influence on the ownership of the previous land as the land to the land as the land lot number was omitted and (3) the previous land lot number was omitted and omitted.
Therefore, the original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court which is the original judgment. It is so decided as per Disposition by all participating judges.
Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge)