[소유권이전등기청구사건][하집1986(3),249]
(a) Trade and ratification of farmland prior to the completion of redemption;
(b) The meaning of "land returned to the Government by moving-in or abandoning farming" under Article 19(1) of the Farmland Reform Act;
A. The act of selling and selling farmland distributed under the Farmland Reform Act shall be deemed null and void, or if the seller did not raise any objection within 20 years after the buyer completed repayment in the name of the seller, then the act of selling and selling the farmland shall be deemed null and void. Thus, the act of selling and buying the farmland shall be deemed null and void.
(b) The land that has been returned to the Government by giving up farming or farming as stipulated in Article 19(1) of the Farmland Reform Act refers to the land that has been returned to the Government by undergoing such procedures as stipulated in Article 52 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, and this does not include the farmland that has de facto renounced the cultivation by giving up farming without undergoing such procedures;
Articles 16 and 19 of the Farmland Reform Act
[Plaintiff-Appellant] 67Da1915 decided Oct. 10, 1967 (Specially, Article 16(4)171 Ka2102 of the Farmland Reform Act) (Specially, Article 2(14)292 Gong664-14204 decided Jul. 28, 1981)
Park Jae-bok et al.
Korea
Daegu District Court of First Instance (84dan3759)
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
The defendant will implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on September 30, 1965 with respect to the non-party 189 square meters prior to 262-5, Nam-gu, Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, 262-30 square meters prior to 262-34, and 300 square meters prior to 1965.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.
The original judgment shall be revoked.
The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiffs in the first and second instances.
The second piece of farmland in this case was farmland reverted to the non-party 148 square meters (489 square meters) from May 1, 197, 262 as the 196th 5th 5th 5th 148 (the administrative district changed to the Dong-gu, Daegu), and the fact that it was farmland distributed to the non-party 2 as a result of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act around 1949 is not a dispute between the parties, and the evidence Nos. 2-2, No. 4-2, No. 4-8, No. 4-9, and the first instance court witness, and the result of the examination by the court below, that the above 196th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 1950 6th 6th 6th 6th 1966th 6th 196th 6th 306th 6th 196th 3 of the above decision.
Since the plaintiffs asserted that the above 19-year farmland had been abandoned for the purpose of preserving the right to claim the above 5-year farmland transfer registration, the defendant's assertion that the above 2-year farmland had not been abandoned for the purpose of preserving the above 9-year farmland transfer registration, and that the above 1-year farmland had not been abandoned for the purpose of preserving the above 9-year farmland transfer registration, the defendant's assertion that the above 2-year farmland had no obligation to transfer ownership to the above 9-year farmland transfer registration, and that the above 5-year farmland transfer registration had not been made for the purpose of preserving the above 9-year farmland transfer registration, and that the above 5-year farmland transfer registration procedure had not been made for the purpose of preserving the above 9-year farmland transfer registration, the defendant's assertion that the above 5-year farmland transfer registration procedure had not been made for the purpose of preserving the above 1-year farmland transfer registration, and that the above 5-year farmland transfer registration procedure had not been made for the purpose of distributing the above 1-year farmland.
Therefore, the disposition of farmland distribution, which was made in the future, has not been invalidated, so the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure of ownership transfer registration on the farmland of this case due to the completion of repayment. Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim for the execution of this case by subrogation of the above letter of delivery is justified, and the original judgment is just in conclusion, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant who has lost.
Judges Znwon (Presiding Judge) Roster