The validity of the distribution of farmland without public notice of the distribution of farmland for each farm household under Article 32 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act.

Farmland distribution disposition without a specific publication of the distribution schedule for each farm household under Article 32 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act is an invalidation disposition which has apparent and serious defects.

Article 32 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act

Supreme Court Decision 67Da1267 delivered on September 29, 1967 (Supreme Court Decision 2086Da165 delivered on June 15, 196, Supreme Court Decision 15NoDa165 delivered on September 20, 196, Supreme Court Decision 32Da1712 delivered on September 20

Plaintiff

Defendant

Seoul Central District Court (65 Ghana5686) of the first instance court

Supreme Court Decision 67Da1267 Decided September 29, 1967

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The case shall be remanded to the Seoul Civil District Court.

The plaintiff's legal representative shall implement the procedure for cancellation registration of transfer of ownership, which was completed on June 11, 1956 as No. 4044 on the real estate stated in the attached Form attached to the plaintiff.

The judgment that the litigation costs should be borne by the defendant was sought.

The same shall apply to the order.

(1) The original judgment dismissed the plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant, and for that reason, the plaintiff's legal representative was entitled to share ownership as to the farmland recorded in the separate sheet like the non-party 1 and Japan, and the defendant did not have cultivated the above farmland, and even though it is not a farming household, the plaintiff's legal representative applied for a false share distribution by pretending to be cultivated, and the committee did not make a public announcement of the distribution of the farmland (in accordance with the whole purport of the pleading, it is clear that the public announcement of the distribution of the farmland by farming household should be made) and distributed the above farmland to the defendant on February 1, 1953 without the public announcement of the distribution (in accordance with the whole purport of the pleading, the public announcement of the distribution of the farmland by farming household shall be made). Accordingly, the plaintiff's claim that the transfer of ownership in the defendant's name on the ground of the completion of the repayment of the above farmland shall be null and void. If we combine the whole purport of the party's pleading on February 1, 1953.

(2) However, where farmland is distributed without a specific publication of the distribution farmland list by farm household under Article 32 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act, the disposition of distribution shall be deemed to be an invalidation disposition where there is a clear and serious defect. Thus, if the head of the Gu having jurisdiction over the location of the farmland indicated in the attached list did not make a specific publication of the distribution of the above farmland to the defendant as alleged by the plaintiff, the disposition of distribution shall be null and void. If the head of the Gu having jurisdiction over the location of the farmland indicated in the attached list did not make a specific publication of the distribution of the above farmland, the disposition of distribution shall be deemed null and void. The registration of ownership transfer of the purport of the claim concerning the above farmland in the defendant's name, which was passed through due to the completion of the payment due to the distribution, shall be null and void. Therefore, the plaintiff may file a lawsuit against the defendant immediately without going through the procedure for the cancellation registration of ownership transfer registration as provided in Article 22 of the Farmland Reform Act, and therefore, the court below rejected the plaintiff's appeal without the plaintiff's appeal or dismissal.

(3) Therefore, according to Articles 386 and 388 of the Civil Procedure Act, the original judgment shall be revoked and the case shall be remanded to the Seoul Civil Procedure District Court which caused the first instance court. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Cho Jong-dae (Presiding Judge)