[소유권이전등기말소등청구사건][고집1970민(2),128]
The validity of the decision made by the Farmland Committee to cancel the distribution of farmland upon an objection filed by an objection that has been rescheduled after the repayment is completed and the transfer registration is completed.
The decision of the farmland committee shall be null and void as a matter of course, if the farmland committee has decided to revoke farmland decomposition, and the decision of the farmland committee shall be null and void.
Article 32 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act, Article 2 of the Farmland Reform Act
Korea
Defendant 1 and nine others
Seoul Central District Court (69A2440) in the first instance trial (Supreme Court Decision 69Da2440)
This appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
The Plaintiff
(1) On March 9, 1956 regarding the real estate on the attached list No. 1, 1956, the defendant 1 received the Yeongdeungpopool registry office of the Seoul Civil District Court on March 14, 1956, with No. 1277, Jan. 14, 1956, and with No. 1024, Jan. 20, 1964 concerning the real estate on the attached list No. 4, with the same registry office received on January 14, 196
(2) Defendant 2: (a) the receipt of the same registry office on June 26, 1956, of the receipt of the same registry office on June 26, 1956, as to the real estate listed in [Attachment 1 through 5], and the transfer of ownership on April 15,
(3) Defendant 3 and 4 shall register transfer of ownership on December 31, 1963 as to the real estate in the separate sheet No. 2686 of the same registry office on April 15, 1963.
(4) Defendant 5’s registration of transfer of co-ownership rights based on co-ownership on March 13, 1965 by receipt of the same registry office on March 31, 1965 as to co-ownership shares in Defendant 4 shares in the attached Table 2.
(5) Defendant 6: (a) on May 15, 1963, the receipt of the same registry office on May 15, 1963, the registration of transfer of ownership by reason of sale on April 15, 1963
(6) Defendant 7: (a) on December 5, 1964, the receipt of the same registry office on December 5, 1964, the registration of transfer of ownership by reason of sale on September 10, 1964
(7) Defendant 8: (a) on August 18, 1964, the receipt of the same registry office on August 17, 1964; (b) on August 17, 1964, the transfer of ownership on the ground of sale is registered.
(8) Defendant 9: (a) on April 20, 1967, the receipt of the same registry office on April 20, 1967, the registration of transfer of ownership by reason of sale on April 1, 1967
(9) As of November 14, 1968, Defendant 10 Co., Ltd. received by the same registry office on November 14, 1968, the registration procedure for cancellation of the registration of creation of a superficies based on the establishment of a neighboring mortgage based on a contract to establish a contract on November 14, 1968 is implemented as of November 14, 1968, and as of November 14, 1968, pursuant to Article 55732 of the receipt of the same registry office on November 14, 1968.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendants.
In addition to the cancellation of the judgment of the first instance, the same contents as the purport of the claim.
The real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 through 5 was at least 2,190 square meters prior to the division, Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Yeongdeungpo-gu, 636-4, 2,190, but it was at the time of August 9, 1945, that the real estate registry was held by Nonparty 1, Japan, as Japan, on the real estate registry, was not clearly disputed by the Defendants, and thus, it is deemed that the Defendants led to the confession of the above plaintiff's assertion. As to the 2,190 square meters prior to the above 2,190 square meters, Defendant 1 completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of the completion of repayment on January 14, 1956, and thereafter, there is no dispute between the parties.
The plaintiff alleged that the above 2,190 square meters (hereinafter referred to as this case's land) belongs to the State pursuant to 33 of the military law, and that the defendant 1 forged a certificate of repayment and repayment containing false facts and completed the registration of ownership transfer despite the fact that he did not cultivate the land at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, so the above registration of ownership acquisition is null and void. Therefore, the defendant 1 completed the repayment by lawful distribution of farmland and the other defendants' registration was completed. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion that this case's land belongs to the State is not legally valid, but can not be accepted in light of the above facts that the plaintiff 1 completed the registration of ownership transfer under the above 1,67,86 and No. 166 of the Enforcement Decree's statement that the plaintiff 1 completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the court's 6,000,0000,0000,0000 No. 1671, May 16, 200
In light of the above facts and facts, the plaintiff 2's disposition on the non-party 1 and the non-party 2's non-party 1 and the non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1 and the non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1 and the non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 5's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 1's.
Therefore, since the land in this case was divided by Defendant 1 and completed the repayment upon the completion of the registration, and thereafter was divided, and the registration of the establishment of ownership and the registration of the creation of superficies under each of the Defendants, such as the purport of the claim, was made, the plaintiff's claim in this case under the premise that the above registration of ownership transfer in Defendant 1 was null and void, shall be dismissed on the premise that the above registration of ownership transfer in the name of Defendant 1 is null and void, and the decision of the
Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition.
[Attachment List omitted]
Judges Kim Tae-tae (Presiding Judge)