[토지명도청구사건][고집1966민,133]
Effect of disposition of distributing farmland to land which is a site;
Since farmland is not farmland to be distributed by the Farmland Reform Act at the time of enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act and at the time of distribution, even if the land was distributed and disposed of in accordance with the above Act, it is null and void. Therefore, even if it is a person who completed the redemption of the land and completed the registration of ownership transfer, the ownership can not be acquired.
Articles 1 and 2 of the Farmland Reform Act
Supreme Court Decision 64Da907 delivered on December 24, 1964 (Supreme Court Decision 6151 delivered on June 61, 1964; Supreme Court Decision 12 ② ②BBBB16 delivered on June 16, 196; Decision 1(10)1625 of the Farmland Reform Act
Plaintiff
Busan City
Busan District Court (65No2232)
The original judgment shall be revoked.
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff through the first and second trials.
The defendant delivered to the plaintiff the plaintiff 1,022-2 to 315 square meters in Busan-gu, Busan-do and 1,025-2 (local site) 516 square meters in the same place.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.
This judgment may be provisionally executed.
The decision like the order is sought.
According to the evidence No. 1, No. 1-2 and No. 2, which are not disputed in the establishment of the plaintiff, the plaintiff can recognize the fact that the plaintiff has completed the registration of transfer of ownership on December 31, 1954 after receiving distribution from the government on March 25, 1950 the land (hereinafter referred to as this "the land") as stated in the purport of the claim and completing the repayment by December 31, 1954.
If the Defendant testified Non-Party 1 and Non-Party 3 as the witness of the original trial at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act at the time of the distribution, and even if the land was distributed to non-party 1 at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act at the time of the distribution, the distribution disposition is no longer null and void. Thus, if the Plaintiff 3 and Non-Party 3 were to make the testimony of Non-Party 1 and Non-Party 3 on the statement of the evidence Nos. 4-1 to 3 of the same evidence Nos. 4, 1946, the land of this case was originally owned by Non-Party 4, Japan, the ownership of Non-Party 4, the land of this case at the time of the tidal wave, which was owned by the Non-Party 4, the Busan City, Busan, and 1022-2, 315 were cultivated by Non-Party 1 at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, and the person was donated to the Maurian Youth Association at the time of 194.
Therefore, even if the land was not farmland to be distributed in accordance with the Farmland Reform Act at the time and at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, but land was distributed and disposed of in accordance with the Farmland Reform Act, this would be null and void as a matter of course, and even if the plaintiff completed the repayment and completed the registration of ownership transfer, the plaintiff cannot acquire the ownership of the land legally.
Even if the land was non-farmland at the time of distributing farmland, the Plaintiff asserts that the disposition of distributing farmland was valid because the Defendant interfered with and forced the Plaintiff’s cultivation, but the testimony of Non-party 5, a witness at the trial room, consistent with this, cannot be trusted, and there is no evidence to prove the above fact, and this assertion is rejected as it was a site in the same way as the above acknowledged.
Therefore, as long as the Plaintiff did not own ownership on the land of this case, it is unreasonable to determine the remaining arguments based on the ownership without any need to determine the ownership. However, the court below erred by admitting the Plaintiff’s claim, and the Defendant’s appeal is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 96 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to the party members whose original judgment is revoked by virtue of Article 386 of the Civil Procedure Act and to the
Judges Song-dae (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Justice)