[소유권보존등기말소·소유권보존등기말소][미간행]
Whether a piece of land, which is an appurtenant facility of the steel farmland, has been purchased and distributed together to a distributionr, in cases where the steel farmland was purchased from the government pursuant to the former Farmland Reform Act (affirmative)
Articles 2, 5, and 11 of the former Farmland Reform Act (amended by Act No. 561 of Oct. 13, 1960)
Supreme Court Decision 80Da755 Decided July 22, 1980 (Gong1980, 13078) Supreme Court Decision 2004Da64456 Decided April 14, 2005
Plaintiff 1 and four others
Republic of Korea (Law Firm, Attorneys Park Jong-seok et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Independent Party Intervenor (Attorney Jeong Nam-hee et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)
Seoul Central District Court Decision 2010Na32916, 32923 Decided December 9, 2010
Of the judgment below, the part concerning the real estate listed in attached Form 1 of the real estate list among the judgment below is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Central District Court. The remaining appeal is dismissed.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the facts acknowledged by the evidence of the judgment alone cannot be presumed to have acquired the land prior to the division from around 1912 to around 1938 by the non-party, who is a pro-Japanese and anti-national offender, as the property acquired in return for pro-Japanese act on or after August 15, 1945.
In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on the scope of property acquired in return for pro-Japanese act as stipulated in Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the Special Act on the Reversion of Property of Pro-Japanese and Anti-National Collaborative Acts,
2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2
The allegation in the grounds of appeal purporting that the purchase fund of the land before the division of this case should also be the pro-Japanese property on the premise that the purchase fund of the land before the division of this case is pro-Japanese property is the pro-Japanese property is not a legitimate ground of appeal.
3. As to the third ground for appeal
Land, which is a facility attached to a steel farmland, was purchased from the Government according to the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, and was distributed to distributors by purchasing the farmland together with the farmland to the Government without a separate distribution procedure. Therefore, the previous owner cannot be deemed to have remaining ownership (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da64456, Apr. 14, 2005, etc.).
The court below rejected the judgment of the court below on the ground that there is a lack of evidence to support the fact that the land of this case is an accessory to the farmland of this case, and it is difficult to accept the judgment of the court below as it is, on the ground that the defendant alleged that the real estate No. 1 in the attached Table No. 1 in the attached Table No. 1 in the real estate list No. 1 in the judgment of the court below (hereinafter referred
According to the facts established by the court below and the evidence duly admitted by the court below, the farmland distribution procedure was conducted for the 355 Embre-Y-gun, Gyeonggi-gun (No. 1 omitted) (hereinafter “the land before the division”) pursuant to the former Farmland Reform Act (amended by Act No. 31, Jun. 21, 1949) regarding the land before the division. The defendant, around 1957 after purchasing the land before the division from the non-party, divided the land of this case into 1 and the above (No. 2 omitted) No. 197, and completed the registration of ownership transfer for the land of this case excluded from the farmland distribution. Meanwhile, the land before the division was adjacent to the water course at the time of the farmland distribution, but the land of this case was narrow between the above (No. 2 omitted), and was owned in the defendant’s name without being distributed separately in the shape of the belt, and the circumstances leading up to the division and the above land distribution (No. 20, 197).
Nevertheless, without sufficiently examining the current status, etc. at the time of distributing farmland of this case 1, the court below concluded that it is difficult to regard the land of this case 1 as an accessory facility to the farmland of this case or that it was difficult to deem that the farmland of this case was distributed upon the completion of its repayment. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on facilities annexed to the farmland of this case or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The defendant's ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.
4. Conclusion
Of the lower judgment, the part concerning the instant land 1 is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion, and the remaining appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Lee Sang-hoon (Presiding Justice)