(b) The purport of Article 2 of the Act on Special Measures for Adjustment of Farmland Reform Projects and Article 1 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

(b) insofar as farmland has been purchased from the State under the Farmland Reform Act but has not been distributed to farmers by legitimate distribution procedures, the purchase measures shall be cancelled and the ownership of farmland shall be reverted to the original owner, at the same time, pursuant to Article 2 of the Act on Special Measures for the Adjustment of Farmland Reform Projects (the date of March 13, 1968) and Article 1 subparagraph 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant delivered the above land to the plaintiff.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant and the judgment of provisional execution on the delivery part

However, the defendant first asserts that the land in this case was owned by the deceased Kim Sung-hwan, and that, at the time of around October 1970, the non-party Kim Yong-Nam filed a lawsuit claiming the performance of the procedure for ownership transfer registration against the above Kim Sung-hwan that had already died at the time of sale and completed the ownership transfer registration based on the confession, and subsequently, the ownership transfer registration was completed in the plaintiff's future. Thus, the defendant asserted that not only the ownership transfer registration of the above Kim Jong-Nam's name, which was completed based on the invalid judgment against the deceased, but also the ownership transfer registration of the plaintiff's name, or the cause for the invalidation of

If the ownership transfer registration is collected from No. 1, No. 2, and No. 3, without dispute in the establishment, the owner of this case was killed on May 6, 196, with Kim Sung-sung Kim, which was the original owner of this case, and then Kim Nam Kim Jong-hwan was determined in favor of the plaintiff on February 9, 1971, after filing a lawsuit claiming the performance of the pre-registration procedure and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the basis of the pre-registration, and the pre-registration of ownership transfer is completed in the future against the plaintiff on the basis of the above decision that the registration of ownership transfer is invalid. However, the above evidence No. 3 and No. 4 (Case No. 6) without dispute in the establishment of the above case, Kim Jong-sung's ownership transfer registration cannot be viewed as invalid, and the above evidence No. 1, No. 8, which was the first half of the above decision of the court below on the ground that the registration of ownership transfer was invalid by the above decision of the court below.

Then, the defendant asserts that since the land of this case was originally purchased by the government on March 1953 due to the reason that the owner Kim Sung-hwan was not the owner at the time when the Farmland Reform Act was enforced, the registration of transfer of ownership that was completed in the future of the plaintiff from the above Kim Sung-hwan, the non-entitled, the non-party 574-7 to 591, the non-party 574, the non-party 574, the non-party 574, the non-party 114, the non-party 574, the non-party 574, the non-party 114, each lawfully distributed it, and the plaintiff cultivated the land from the river that is the owner of the former land, and the subsequent land was purchased from the non-party Masung Kim Jong-k, the inheritor of the owner of the land, the non-party

Therefore, the fact that each land of this case was purchased from the government under the law as the non-self-owned farmland of the non-party Kim Jong-hwan at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act can be recognized by the entries of the evidence No. 3 (judgment) and the whole purport of the pleading, which had no dispute in the establishment.

However, as alleged by the defendant, we examine whether the non-party 4 acquired ownership of each of the above land by completing the repayment of the non-party 50 billion and Kim Jong-do lawfully, and examine Eul evidence Nos. 4 (Verification Protocol) without any dispute over its establishment after the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, the non-party 591 No. 574 out of each of the above land on the non-party 574-7 of Siung-dong 1953, which was after the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, shall be decided by the non-party 574-6 of the same 574, which was distributed to the non-party 574, the non-party 114, which was the non-party 1, to the non-party 4, the land lot number and the land lot number of each of the above land that became farmland subject to distribution as stated above, and there is no other reasonable evidence to acknowledge that the above land had been distributed to the non-party 2, as the above land lot number and the land lot number of each of the above land were distributed.

However, the government's purchase of non-self-owned farmland under Article 5 subparagraph 2 of the Farmland Reform Act on the condition that it will not be distributed thereafter. However, even if each land was sold to the government as non-self-owned farmland owned by Kim Sung-hwan at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, the defendant's assertion on this issue is not accepted, under the premise that the purchase of each land was already cancelled and its ownership was returned to the heir of Kim Sung-sung who is the original owner, as long as the purchase registration of ownership was transferred to the plaintiff, which was made in succession through the above Kim Yong-Nam's order through the sale contract between the above Kim Jong-hwan and Kim Yong-Nam, as long as it was not distributed to the farmer by legitimate distribution procedure (Article 2 of the same Act and Article 1 subparagraph 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act).

Therefore, each land of this case is owned by the plaintiff, and the defendant is obligated to deliver each land of this case to the plaintiff unless there is clear assertion and proof as to the right to possess the land. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for the confirmation of ownership and the plaintiff's claim for the delivery of possession is justified. As such, the original judgment is justified, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Osungsung(Presiding Judge)