beta
(영문) 대법원 1980. 9. 9. 선고 80다1082 판결

[소유권이전등기·근저당권설정등기말소][집28(3)민,60;공1980.11.1.(643),13168]

Main Issues

A person eligible to receive a distribution of farmland under the Farmland Reform Act;

Summary of Judgment

A farmer who can receive a distribution of farmland under the Farmland Reform Act is not necessarily required to be an adult, but should be regarded as a farmer so long as he/she cultivates farmland with his/her family even though he/she is a minor.

[Reference Provisions]

Article 11 of the Farmland Reform Act

Plaintiff-Appellee

Plaintiff

Defendant-Appellant

Korea

Judgment of the lower court

Gwangju High Court Decision 79Na325 delivered on April 2, 1980

Text

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the defendant's defense, namely, that the non-party 1 was a minor under 15 years of age at the time of enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, and therefore, the non-party 2 and the non-party 1 cannot be viewed as a farmer under the Farmland Reform Act, and therefore, the non-party 1's disposition of farmland distribution against the above non-party is invalid at the time of distribution. The court below held that the non-party 1's disposition of farmland distribution cannot be viewed as a legitimate disposition of farmland distribution under the non-party 1's name as the non-party 1's allegation that the non-party 2 and the non-party 1 cannot be viewed as a farmland distribution under the above non-party 1's own name and the non-party 1's allegation that the non-party 1 cannot be viewed as a farmland distribution under the non-party 1's own name and the non-party 1's allegation that the non-party 3's new farmland distribution disposition cannot be viewed as a legitimate disposition of farmland distribution under the above non-party 1's name.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant who has lost, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeong Tae-won (Presiding Justice)