Main Issues

misunderstanding of legal principles on replotting and farmland distribution and incomplete deliberation;

Summary of Judgment

If a person who has a right to use and benefit from a land reserved for replotting acquires a right to cultivate the land reserved for replotting and obtains a distribution of farmland, the person who has the right to use and benefit from the land reserved for replotting shall acquire ownership only for the farmland itself, and there is no right to use

[Reference Provisions]

Article 57 of the Land Readjustment Projects Act, Article 56 of the Land Readjustment Projects Act, Article 11 of the Farmland Reform Act

Reference Cases

Supreme Court Decision 63Da14 Decided February 28, 1963 Supreme Court Decision 65Da24 Decided June 29, 1967

Plaintiff, Counterclaim Defendant, Appellee

J. Gyeong-nam

Defendant, Counterclaim Plaintiff, and Appellant

Jeong Chang-ju et al.

Defendant-Appellant

Newly Inserted by Presidential Decree No. 2010

Judgment of the lower court

Seoul High Court Decision 66Na678, 679 delivered on May 17, 1967, Seoul High Court Decision 66Na678, 679

Text

We reverse the original judgment.

Reasons

The Defendants’ ground of appeal is as follows. In other words, if the Plaintiff’s 2nd and 34th and 196th and above land were registered as the Plaintiff’s ownership, and the Plaintiff’s 2nd and 34th and above land (hereinafter “B”) had not been designated as the land reserved for replotting in the name of the Plaintiff’s 2nd and 6th and 278th and 26th and above land reserved for replotting in the name of the Plaintiff’s land reserved for replotting (hereinafter “C2nd and 6th and above land reserved for replotting”), the Plaintiff’s 2nd and 2nd and 6th and 6th and above land reserved for replotting in the name of the Plaintiff’s land reserved for replotting (hereinafter “Bnd and 3th and above land reserved for replotting”), the Plaintiff had no right to use and benefit from the land reserved for replotting in the name of the Plaintiff’s 2nd and the Plaintiff’s 1st and 2nd and the Plaintiff had no right to use and benefit from the land reserved for replotting in the name of the Plaintiff.