[토지소유권이전등기][공2000.11.15.(118),2209]
[1] The meaning of the renunciation of farmland in a case where the person who received and distributed farmland in the register of repayment of distributed farmland or the register of repayment of farmland by year is stated as the waiver of the farmland distributed to him/her (=return of farmland)
[2] The case holding that a receiver of farmland distributed shall be deemed to waive the distributed farmland
[1] Although Article 19 of the Farmland Act (Act No. 31 of Jun. 21, 194) does not use the term "abolation" in the Farmland Act before it was repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the Farmland Act enacted by Act No. 4817 of Dec. 22, 1994, Article 52 of the Enforcement Rule of the Farmland Act (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the Enforcement Rule of the Farmland Act, No. 1217 of Dec. 29, 195) uses the term "abolation" instead of the term "abolation of the Farmland Act before it was repealed". Since Article 19 of the Farmland Reform Act (No. 31 of Jun. 21, 1949) uses the term "abolation" after it was amended, it is reasonable to view that the term "abolation of farmland" is still a waiver of the return of farmland after the amendment.
[2] The case holding that a receiver of farmland distributed shall be deemed to waive the distributed farmland
[1] Article 19 of the former Farmland Reform Act (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the Farmland Act, Act No. 4817 of December 22, 1994), Article 52 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Farmland Reform Act (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the Enforcement Rule of the Farmland Act, Ordinance No. 1217 of December 29, 1995) / [2] Article 19 of the former Farmland Reform Act (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the Farmland Act, Act No. 4817 of December 22, 1994), Article 52 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Farmland Reform Act (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the Enforcement Rule of the Farmland Act, Ordinance No. 1217 of December 29, 1995)
[1] Supreme Court Decision 92Da25472 delivered on March 26, 1993 (Gong1993Sang, 1288), Supreme Court Decision 93Da29471 delivered on November 23, 1993 (Gong1994Sang, 182), Supreme Court Decision 97Da20571 delivered on April 10, 1998 (Gong1998Sang, 1276)
Plaintiff (Appointed Party)
Korea
Changwon District Court Decision 99Na6436 delivered on April 20, 2000
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff (appointed party).
We examine the grounds of appeal.
Even though Article 19 of the Farmland Act (No. 31 of June 21, 194) does not use the term "cape" in the Farmland Act before it was repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the Farmland Act enacted by Act No. 4817 of December 22, 1994, Article 19 of the Farmland Act (No. 31 of June 21, 1949) uses the term "non-performance" instead of the term "return of the Farmland Act before it was repealed," and Article 52 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act still states that the return of farmland is still a renunciation after it was amended, it is reasonable to view that the term "return of farmland" means "return of farmland where the farmland distributed by a distributor is written as the renunciation of payment of distributed farmland by year (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Da25472, Mar. 26, 1993; 9Da293471, Nov. 23, 1993).
According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below and the court of first instance cited in part, the court below rejected the plaintiff's above 2's above 4.0 m. from the above 5's 1950 m., the non-party 1, who was the deceased's 20m., the above 472m., ( Address 1 omitted), 874m., ( Address 2 omitted), 515m. ( Address 3 omitted), 695m. ( Address 4 omitted), 596m. ( Address 5 omitted), 88.04m., 6m., 78.06m. and 7m. were distributed to the non-party 3m., and the 20.65m., which is the part of the above 4m., were corrected to be 67.39m., and there were no errors in the law regarding the redemption of the above 4m., as the above 4m., the redemption of the land.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Son Ji-yol (Presiding Justice)