[토지소유권이전등기말소등기 ][하집1995-2, 51]
In cases where a transfer registration of ownership invalidation of a third party's name, other than a distributor, has been made for farmland the repayment of which has been completed, whether the State may seek the implementation of the procedure for the cancellation registration (negative)
If the State distributes farmland, which is the property devolving upon the State, and the person who collects it completes repayment, ownership of such farmland is naturally reverted to a lender even if the registration of ownership transfer is not completed as a change in real rights under the so-called law as referred to in Article 187 of the Civil Act. Thus, even if the ownership invalidation of the cause of the third party’s name has been completed with respect to the farmland repaid, the State may not seek implementation of the procedure for registration of cancellation on the premise that the third
Article 187 of the Civil Act, Article 27-2 of the Farmland Reform Act
[Plaintiff, Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)
Korea
Defendant (Attorney Lee Jong-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant)
Gwangju District Court Decision 93Da8066 delivered on August 17, 1993
Gwangju District Court Decision 93Na7071 delivered on April 15, 1994
Supreme Court Decision 94Da24534 delivered on September 9, 1994
1. The judgment of the court below is revoked.
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. The total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff.
The defendant will implement the procedure for the cancellation registration of transfer of ownership completed by the Gwangju District Court No. 29614, Jun. 7, 1991 with respect to the plaintiff-appellant 25-15, Gwangju Northern-dong 255-2.
The same shall apply to the order.
1. From among the above facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3-1, 5, 6, 8-1 to 4, 9, 11-2, Eul evidence No. 12, 13, 18-1, 2, 4 through 6, 8 through 10, the above fact that the defendant had obtained the above non-party No. 2's transfer registration for the above non-party Nos. 1 to 34-15, 92-2 (hereinafter referred to as the "the above farmland No. 3297"), the non-party No. 97 had no ownership transfer registration for the above non-party No. 1 to 46-1, 97, the non-party No. 97 had no ownership transfer registration for the non-party No. 1 to 46-1, 1939-2, the non-party No. 97, the non-party No.
2. The Plaintiff asserts that the farmland in this case is the property devolving upon the State, and its repayment has been completed, but thereafter the farmland in this case was returned to the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 2 of the Act on Special Measures for the Adjustment of Farmland Improvement Projects (Enforcement of March 13, 1968, Act No. 1993), and that the farmland in this case is the land to be acquired by the Plaintiff as it falls under the real estate without the State, insofar as it is not verified whether the said Incheon, which is the right holder, or his successor’s survival and location, and accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks to implement the procedure for the cancellation registration on the ground that the ownership transfer registration without the cause under the name of the Defendant was made.
However, since a person who received a distribution of farmland pursuant to the Farmland Reform Act acquires ownership pursuant to the provisions of Article 187 of the Civil Act even though he did not make a registration upon completion of the repayment, the farmland in this case is still owned by the above YY or his successor. The above provision of the Act on Special Measures is only a provision concerning the state-owned registration of farmland not distributed among the farmland acquired by the State pursuant to the Farmland Reform Act, and therefore it cannot be a ground for recognizing that the farmland in this case is owned by the plaintiff, and it is insufficient to recognize that the farmland in this case is a non-owned real estate only by
3. If so, the plaintiff is not entitled to seek cancellation of the above registration concerning the farmland of this case against the defendant. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case of this case is dismissed without any further review. The judgment below which differs from this conclusion is unfair, and the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed.
Judges Jeong-ju (Presiding Judge)