[손해배상(기)][공1996.2.1.(3),340]
Where seeking confirmation of land ownership against a person who does not dispute ownership, other than a registered titleholder, the case holding that there is no benefit in confirmation
The case reversing the judgment of the court below and rejecting the lawsuit on the ground that the original owner who asserts that the ownership of the land gratuitously donated to the State still remains in violation of the procedure under the Agricultural Community Modernization Promotion Act, is an effective way to solve the dispute, and that it is adequate to seek cancellation of the registration or confirmation of ownership of the contents confirming that the ownership of the land is his own, against the present state, and that it is not necessary to seek confirmation of the ownership of the land on the basis of the previous land cadastre and the land category, lot number and land register already closed against the farmland improvement association against the present state, which is the current state, on the premise that the farmland improvement project implementation procedure of the farmland improvement association is null and void because it is in violation of the procedure under the Agricultural Community Modernization Promotion Act.
Article 228 of the Civil Procedure Act
[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)
Plaintiff 1 and one other (Law Firm Nammun General Law Office, Attorneys Lee Byung-il et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Drown Farmland Improvement Association
Seoul District Court Decision 94Na48362 delivered on May 11, 1995
The judgment of the court of first instance is reversed and the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked. The litigation costs are assessed against the plaintiffs.
The grounds of appeal are examined ex officio as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.
According to the facts and records acknowledged by the court below, the land of this case originally owned by the plaintiffs was newly incorporated into the farmland improvement project district of this case executed by the defendant. Since the implementation of the farmland improvement project is completed and the land substitution plan is authorized and publicly announced, the area of the land of this case constitutes not more than 300 square meters, and thus, the previous land cadastre and register was closed without the designation of land substitution. As a result, ditches or roads were constructed at the place where the land of this case is located as a result of the implementation of the above farmland improvement project, and new land register was arranged, the previous land lot number of ○○△△△-ri (number 1 omitted), (number 2 omitted), (number 57 square meters in the previous land lot number of 57 square meters in the same Ri (number 4 omitted), the previous land lot number of 2,647 square meters in the same Ri (number 5 omitted) and the previous land lot number of 30 square meters in the new land lot number of the land of this case was omitted, and the new land lot number of the new land lot lot number of this case was omitted.
On the contrary, under the premise that the Defendant’s procedures for implementing the farmland improvement project of this case are invalid in violation of the procedure under the Agricultural Community Modernization Promotion Act, the Plaintiffs asserting that the ownership of the land of this case still exists in themselves, who are the current state of registration, shall be entitled to seek cancellation or confirmation of ownership of the previous part of the land of this case among the ditches of the same Ri (number 3 omitted), (number 5 omitted), ditches (number 5 omitted), and roads of the same Ri (number 6 omitted), through which the former part of the previous land of this case can be resolved through a fundamental way and appropriate method to resolve the dispute, and there is no need to seek confirmation of ownership of the land of this case against the Defendant, who did not dispute the ownership of the land of this case as one of the instant land of this case or the new part of the land of this case.
Therefore, the lawsuit of this case by the plaintiffs is dismissed because there is no benefit of legal action or confirmation, and therefore, it should be dismissed. However, the court below erred by the judgment of the court of first instance and maintained the judgment of the court of first instance which dismissed the plaintiffs' claim of this case, and therefore, the judgment of the court below cannot be exempted
Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the lawsuit of this case is dismissed, and all costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the losing plaintiffs. It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)