[소유권말소등기등][미간행]
[1] In a case where it is determined that farmland purchased by the government under the former Farmland Reform Act is not distributed after the purchase of farmland, whether farmland ownership shall be reverted to the original owner (affirmative)
[2] The ownership of farmland registered as a state-owned property under Article 2(1) of the former Act on Special Measures for Adjustment of Farmland Reform Projects, but not distributed within the period under paragraph (3) of the same Article
[3] Ownership ownership ownership of distributed farmland, the repayment of farmland price and registration of which are not completed within the grace period under Article 3 of the Addenda to the Farmland Act
[4] Whether the state can acquire the ownership of a real estate that exists as a heir through the procedure for acquiring the unregistered real estate under the State Property Act (negative)
[5] The nature of the state's possession of the farmland purchased under the former Farmland Reform Act (=the possession of the owner)
[1] Article 5 of the former Farmland Reform Act (repealed by Act No. 4817 of Dec. 22, 1994) / [2] Article 5 of the former Farmland Reform Act ( repealed by Act No. 4817 of Dec. 22, 1994 by Act No. 2 subparagraph 1 of the Addenda of the Farmland Act of Dec. 22, 1994), Article 2 of the former Farmland Reform Act (repealed by Act No. 2 subparagraph 2 of the Addenda of the Farmland Act of Dec. 22, 1994 by Act No. 4817 of Dec. 22, 1994) / [3] Article 5 of the former Farmland Reform Act (repealed by Act No. 2 subparagraph 1 of the Addenda of the Farmland Act of Act No. 4817 of Dec. 22, 1994); Article 25 of the former Farmland Reform Act of Act No. 4815 of Dec. 22, 1994>
[1] [2] [3] Supreme Court Decision 2000Da45778 decided May 28, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 1500) / [1] [2] [5] Supreme Court Decision 2001Da48187 decided December 27, 2001 (Gong2002Sang, 357) / [1/2] Supreme Court Decision 81Da782 decided December 8, 1981 (Gong1982, 141) (Gong141), Supreme Court Decision 200Da2085 decided June 9, 200, Supreme Court Decision 9Da578 decided August 21, 201 (Gong201Ha, 20329 decided August 16, 201), Supreme Court Decision 306Da56379 decided May 16, 2019 (Gong196365 decided August 29, 2006)
Seocho-gu
Korea
Seoul District Court Decision 2003Na9826 delivered on November 21, 2003
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
1. After compiling the adopted evidence, the court below found facts as stated in its reasoning. According to its findings, it is not sufficient to recognize that the court below's fact-finding and judgment of the court below are correct, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence as alleged in the grounds for appeal, and there is no error of law against the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence as asserted in the grounds for appeal.
Supreme Court Decision 93Da4120 delivered on January 14, 1994, which held that it is inappropriate for the Defendant to invoke this case as it differs from the case.
2. According to the provisions of the former Farmland Reform Act (repealed by Act No. 2, No. 4817, Dec. 22, 1994; hereinafter referred to as the "former Farmland Reform Act"), the purchase of farmland which is not self-founded under Article 2, 1 of the Addenda to the Farmland Reform Act (No. 2, No. 4817; hereinafter referred to as the "former Farmland Reform Act") is a measure taken under the condition that the farmland will not be distributed later, the ownership shall be reverted to the original owner regardless of whether the farmland compensation has been paid, and the former Farmland Reform Act (amended by Act No. 2, No. 4817, Dec. 2, 1994; hereinafter referred to as the "Seoul Farmland Reform Act"), and Article 2, 18, etc. of the former Farmland Reform Act (amended by Act No. 1065, Dec. 2, 200; hereinafter referred to as the "former Farmland Reform Act"), which is not distributed within the period of 2. 8.
The court below's decision that the ownership of the land of this case was returned to the original owner is justified in accordance with the above legal principles, and there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to farmland distribution.
3. Meanwhile, since the real estate existing by the heir is not a non-owned real estate, it cannot be a state-owned real estate on the ground that the State had gone through the procedure for acquiring non-owned real estate under the State Property Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Da16013, Jul. 23, 1991; 95Da46654, May 23, 1997; 95Da46661, May 23, 1997). The State's purchase of farmland under the former Farmland Reform Act is for distributing it to self-employed farmers, etc., and if non-distribution becomes final and conclusive, it is expected that it should be returned to the original owner from the time of purchase. Thus, the occupation of the State's purchase of farmland shall not be deemed an autonomous possession with the intent to avoid the control of the real owner, and it shall be deemed as the possession of another owner in the nature of the title (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Da48187, Dec. 27, 2001).
The court below's rejection of the defendant's assertion that the acquisition of ownership by the completion of the procedure for acquiring non-owned real estate or the acquisition by prescription is justified in accordance with such legal principles, and there is no error of law as alleged in the
4. In addition, there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff did not exercise its right despite the Plaintiff’s knowledge that the instant land was not distributed to self-employed farmers, etc., and that the ownership was returned to the original owner. Moreover, there is no room to deem that the Plaintiff’s right was invalidated due to the Plaintiff’s failure to exercise its right during the enforcement of various special measures or that the instant claim constitutes abuse of its right. Therefore, the allegation in the grounds of
5. Therefore, the appeal is 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 Yoon Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)