[토지소유권확인][집28(2)민,193;공1980.10.1.(641),13078]
Purchase and distribution under the Farmland Reform Act and the land which is an attached facility of the steel farm;
Since the land, which is an attached facility of the steel farmland, is purchased with the Government along with the relevant steel farmland according to the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act and is distributed along with the said farmland, there is no need to take separate procedures for distribution, and even if there is no compensation, the effect that the land was purchased and distributed to the Government does not affect the effect that the land was distributed.
Articles 5 and 11 of the Farmland Reform Act
Plaintiff 1 and nine others, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-at-law
A representative of the law of the Republic of Korea, the Minister of Justice, a litigation performer, a person of labor
Daegu High Court Decision 78Na983 delivered on February 21, 1980
All appeals are dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs' grounds of appeal are examined.
According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below rejected the judgment below's determination that the land of this case was in the form of a bank and was in the form of a bank and was in the form of a irrigation channel installed between the bank and the bank established in the river basin at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, and that the land of this case was in the form of a bank, and not only was in the form of a irrigation channel established in the bank and the bank established in the river basin at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, but also was in the form of a irrigation channel established in the river basin, and that the land of this case was in the form of a farming channel that passed through the said mon farmland, i.e., the land of this case was in the possession of the non-party at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, and that the land was in the form of a building and the land of this case was in the possession of the non-party (the main body of management) at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, and that the land was distributed together with the land of this case.
In light of the records, the court below's examination of the above facts by comparing the above facts with the records, and it cannot be concluded that the judgment of the court below is unlawful in the violation of the rules of evidence or in the incomplete hearing. The judgment of the court below also is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles concerning farmland distribution or farmland-affiliated facilities, or inconsistent reasoning or incomplete reasoning, or there is no error in the omission of the judgment of the court below which affected the result of the judgment of the court below.
All arguments are groundless.
Therefore, all appeals are 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.
Justices Yu Tae-hee (Presiding Justice)