[소유권이전등기말소][집14(3)민,150]
Cases where there is an error of misunderstanding the Acts and subordinate statutes concerning the validity of the Farmland Reform Act;
According to this Article, the provisions of the law that conflict with this Act stipulate that the conflicting part of the law shall lose its validity, and according to Article 27-2 of this Act, the provisions of Article 6-1 (1) 1 of the Act on Southern and Do Government provide that the combined part of the area of Article 6-1 (1) 1 of the farmland law distributed pursuant to Article 173 of the Act shall not exceed three information, and it shall not be interpreted that the land administrative office may distribute farmland to the land administrative office, which does not exist at that time after the promulgation of this law, without being subject to the procedure prescribed in Article 32 of the Enforcement Decree of this Act.
Article 6 of the Farmland Reform Act, Article 32 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act, Article 173 of the excessive Government Act
Countries
Defendant
Daegu High Court Decision 64Na449 delivered on May 4, 1966
Of the original judgment, the part against the Plaintiff is reversed;
The case shall be remanded to the Daegu High Court.
With respect to the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal:
In its explanation of the reasoning, the judgment of the court below is recognized to have received each distribution from the Land Administrative Agency in accordance with Article 173 of the excessive government law in 1950, while the court below decided that the non-party 1, the non-party 2, and the non-party 2, the non-party 2, and the non-party 2, the non-party 2, the non-party 1, the non-party 3, and the non-party 2, the non-party 2, and the non-party 2, the non-party 2, the non-party 2, the non-party 3, and the non-party 2, the result of the verification in the second instance.
However, the Farmland Reform Act was promulgated on June 21, 1949, and according to Article 28 of that Act, the provisions that conflict with the Farmland Reform Act lose its effect, and according to Article 27-2 of that Act, the farmland distributed pursuant to Article 6 (1) 1 of the Farmland Reform Act and Article 173 of that Act does not change the part where the sum of the area of the farmland distributed pursuant to Article 6 (1) 1 of the Farmland Reform Act does not exceed 3 information. After the promulgation of the Farmland Reform Act, it cannot be interpreted that the land administration office, which does not exist at that time, can distribute farmland without being subject to the procedure under Article 32 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act. The contents of No. 2 and 3 evidence with the original judgment and the result of verification of the second instance court, which are evidence with the original judgment, should not be determined as evidence to be inconsistent with the rules of evidence, and the judgment on the effect of the farmland Reform should not be determined as part of the original judgment against the plaintiff.
Therefore, according to Article 406 of the Civil Procedure Act, it is decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.
The judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) shall transfer to the police officer of the Red Circuit;