[2] Whether registration as a requisite for setting up against the State’s acquisition of farmland ownership under the Farmland Reform Act is necessary (negative)

[3] Reversion of farmland not distributed at the time of the enforcement of the Act on Special Measures for the Adjustment of Farmland Reform Projects

[2] Farmland except as provided by Article 6 of the former Farmland Reform Act (repealed by Act No. 4817 of Dec. 22, 1994), is naturally purchased ownership at the same time as the promulgation of the former Farmland Reform Act, and the acquisition of ownership by the State does not require registration as the requisite for setting up against the original acquisition.

[3] Since the Government's purchase of farmland which is not self-defined under Article 2 (1) of the former Farmland Act (repealed by Act No. 4817 of Dec. 22, 1994), it is a measure taken under the condition that the farmland will not be distributed after it was purchased under the condition that it will be cancelled. Thus, among the purchased farmland, it shall not be included in the distributed farmland confirmed through the procedure under Article 32 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act (repealed by Presidential Decree No. 14835 of Dec. 22, 1995), or among the farmland determined as distributed as farmland, it shall not be distributed to the original farmer, regardless of whether it was registered or confirmed as a state-owned ownership under Article 2 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act (repealed by Act No. 2 subparagraph 2 of the Addenda of the Farmland Act, Act No. 4817 of Dec. 22, 1994), the farmland which was not distributed at the time of enforcement shall not be reverted to the original owner.

A. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the following facts based on the evidence of employment.

(1) Each registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the defendant is made, such as the entry in the column of " receipt" of each of the lands listed in [Attachment List Nos. 5 through 7 of the lower judgment (each of the lands listed in the annexed List No. 5 of the lower judgment, hereinafter referred to as "the land of this case").

(2) Nonparty 1 (Death on December 20, 1952, and 1950 of the judgment of the court below appears to be the clerical error in 1952. The records 33 pages) applied for land price compensation following the implementation of the farmland reform to the head of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the local minister at his residence, around April 28, 1950. Nonparty 2 (Death on December 14, 1971), the head of Nonparty 1, the head of the non-party 1, the head of the household, decided to purchase as the farmland subject to distribution, filed an application for compensation with the head of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the local minister at his residence, as the head of the non-party 1, the head of the non-party 2 (Death on December 14, 1971) to purchase as the farmland subject to distribution.

(3) On April 28, 1950, non-party 1 entered in the column of “B” list No. 4,943, which is the Gyeonggi-gun ( Address omitted), which is the land number of the instant land. This request for compensation (No. 3-5, 1995) provides that the land price shall be determined by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry for the confirmation of the actual size of the farmland under Article 2 subparag. 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform (No. 14835, Dec. 22, 1995, hereinafter referred to as the “former Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform”), Article 13 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act (No. 2 subparag. 1, 195, the Enforcement Rule of the Farmland Act No. 1217, Dec. 29, 1995); Article 18 and Article 19 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Farmland Reform Act (No. 27, 194).

(4) The above written application for compensation requires the applicant to state his/her address, name, location (number, land category, point of view, assessment amount, etc.), address, and name of the registrant. However, the assessment amount and the address and name of the registrant are not stated, but are in blank.

(5) On June 3, 1955, the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City issued securities at the request of the above compensation, where the land price was 1647, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and the compensation amount was 350,000.

B. The lower court, based on such fact-finding, determined as follows.

(Explanation) The phrase "application for compensation" is that the land was purchased as farmland to be distributed by the State at the time of the enforcement of the former Farmland Reform Act, unlike the "Written Table for Confirmation of Farmland" prepared by recording the farmland to be distributed in order to determine distributed farmland, it is difficult to see that the land was purchased as the farmland to be distributed by the State, and there is no other evidence to recognize that the land was purchased as the farmland to be distributed by the State, on the sole basis that the land was issued in accordance with the statement of No. 3-5 (Application for Compensation) or the application for compensation.

In addition, even if not farmland subject to distribution is not farmland, it shall be examined whether the owner of the land can be recognized as non-party 1, and even if based on the plaintiffs' assertion itself, the land is purchased from the situation, not by the non-party 1. The compensation application form does not contain any statement to recognize that the non-party 1 completed the registration of ownership transfer of the land, and it is not sufficient to recognize that the non-party 1 purchased the land and completed the registration of ownership transfer after the purchase of the land by the non-party 3.

2. The judgment of this Court

A. First, in light of the records, it is difficult to accept the following points among the fact-finding of the lower court.

(1) The above application for compensation filed on April 28, 1950 for the land of this case is about the land (location omitted), which is the master lot number of the land of this case, and the application for compensation filed on May 4, 1955 for the land of this case is about each lot number of land in the annexed list 1 through 4 of the judgment below (the plaintiff seems to have reported the whole evidence No. 3-1 to No. 5, but when considering the side number at the bottom of each document, it is difficult to regard the evidence No. 3-5 as the annexed document No. 3-1 of the evidence No. 3-4, unlike the evidence No. 3-2 to No. 4 of the above document). The court below did not distinguish it, and held that all of the above land had been filed two times.

In addition, the issuance of the land price securities is based on the entry of the securities number, etc. of Gap evidence Nos. 3-1 (public letter), but this is not about the ( Address omitted) land of each lot number of land in the annexed list Nos. 1 through 4 of the judgment below (the plaintiff asserted that the above land price securities were issued as to the application for compensation of No. 3-5 of the annexed list No. 3-5, and the court below also accepted it, but as seen above, the evidence No. 3-5 of the certificate No. 3 appears to be separate from the evidence No. 3-1 to No. 4 of the certificate No. 3-5) and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the land price securities were issued

(2) On the other hand, Article 32 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act provides that "A site investigation (site investigation) shall be conducted in accordance with the farmland table by converting the farmland into essential before determining distribution farmland. The head of the Gu, the head of the Si, the head of the Eup, or the head of the Eup, Myeon, shall, by warning the committee's significance based on the site investigation under the preceding paragraph, make it available for perusal for 10 days at the Gu, Si, Eup, or Myeon of the farm household where the farm household is located. When there is no objection to the committee at the seat of the inspection period under the preceding paragraph, it shall be confirmed as distribution farmland." Thus, the farmland table for each farm household is for the confirmation of distribution farmland, and it is not for the confirmation of whether the farmland is purchased or not, as

On the other hand, the prop farmland confirmation sight table or prop confirmation sight table is defined as the "case on the Guidelines for Compensation Application" (No. 48 of November 15, 1950), "case on the issuance of land price securities" (No. 243 of April 28, 1951), and "case on the issuance of land price securities" (No. 627 of March 29, 1952) where the head of the Si/Eup/Myeon of the city where the farmland was located divided the prop by the farmland area and submitted it to the Do governor by dividing it by gender by the farmland area, and the land price securities were issued by the schedule.

Therefore, unlike the schedule of farmland distribution by farm household for the confirmation of distribution of farmland, both are separate documents for the issuance of land price securities, but the court below held this as if it was the same document.

B. Furthermore, it is difficult to accept the judgment of the court below as seen earlier.

(1) Farmland except as provided in Article 6 of the former Farmland Reform Act is naturally purchased and owned by the Government at the same time as the promulgation of the former Farmland Reform Act, and the acquisition of ownership by the State does not require registration as an original acquisition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Da28297, Feb. 12, 1993). In addition, the purchase of farmland which is not self-founded under the former Farmland Reform Act is a measure taken under the condition that the farmland will not be distributed after its purchase will not be distributed. Thus, among the purchased farmland, it is not included in the distributed farmland finalized under Article 32, etc. of the former Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act, or it is not actually distributed to farmers, among the farmland finalized as the distributed farmland, it shall not be included in the distributed farmland finalized under Article 6 of the former Farmland Reform Act, and it shall not be deemed that the farmland is distributed to the original farmer or the owner of the farmland is not distributed to 200 won (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da27848.

However, in light of the records, the non-party 1 testified that "The non-party 1 was a site owner of the information 395 at a certain period, such as Gyeonggi-gun, Seocheon-gun, Suwon-gun, Suwon-gun, and Jeonju-gun, etc., and the non-party 1 was residing in the non-party 5-2, Jung-gu, Seoul as of April 28, 1950, and the non-party 3 was the witness of the first instance trial, "the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the state of farmland purchased most of the farmland at the time of the Farmland Reform Act and distributed it to the farmer (the non-party 1, the non-party 205 pages), and the non-party 1 (the non-party 1, after this point is found to be farmland ownership).

On the other hand, the court below, as the basis of its decision, states that "The case concerning the issuance of land price securities" (No. 243 of April 28, 1951) provides that "in the event that the collection of a 'land price confirmation table' has not been completed, land price may be issued even by the application for compensation without entering the lease price, but even in this case, "in the later case, the amount of compensation is excessive or deficient by entry in the land price verification table for each prop farmland," and 5 of the evidence No. 3 (No. 5 (B) of "No. - the situation - the rent price, type, quantity, and the amount of compensation" is not stated, but the amount of compensation for the farmland is not stated (the lower part of this case, referring to the difference between the rent price and the total amount of compensation for the farmland which has not been entered in the application for compensation which has not been entered in the column of the situation and the amount of compensation for the farmland which has not been divided by the total amount of compensation for the land (see the difference in the total amount of compensation)."

Nevertheless, the court below held that ( Address omitted) land was not purchased or acquired automatically by the government, but only the land actually purchased or actually purchased from among the farmland to be purchased by the government, or the land actually purchased has been purchased to the government. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

(2) Another evidence No. 3 . 5 is that the non-party 1 was actually owned by the owner of the farmland and the head of the farmland committee and the head of the Eup/Myeon for the actual possession of the farmland to be compensated. The lower court stated that the non-party 1 was the non-party 4, the non-party 4, and the chairman of the Eup/Myeon for the short term of April 283, that the non-party 1 was the actual possession of the land, and that the non-party 4, the non-party 5, the non-party 1, the non-party 4, the non-party 5, the non-party 1, the non-party 4, the non-party 1, the non-party 4, the non-party 5, the non-party 1, the non-party 4, the non-party 5, the non-party 1, the non-party 4, the non-party 1, the non-party 5, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the new owner's column.

C. As above, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the farmland reform Act or by misunderstanding facts against the rules of evidence, and it has affected the judgment.

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment below regarding each of the lands listed in the separate sheet shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)