Improper disposal of structures attached to the orchard and relations with Articles 22 and 23 of the Farmland Reform Act

In the event that a building that can be seen as an accessory structure of an orchard under the Farmland Reform Act recognizes the building as an accessory structure of an orchard and disposes of it in a lump sum with an orchard, it is necessary to go through the procedures prescribed in Articles 22 and 23 of the same Act in order to claim the illegality of the recognition disposition and to demand the delivery of the building on the ground of illegal possession of the purchaser.

Articles 2, 5, 7, 22, 23, and 24 of the Farmland Reform Act; Article 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act; Article 21 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act

Attorney Han-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Fluorl Jins

Daegu District Court of the first instance, Daegu High Court of the second instance, 53 civilian 292 delivered on October 29, 1953

The main body is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The ground of appeal by the plaintiff 2 is that if the building was owned by the plaintiff, and the new owner of the farmland was found to have been sold at the time of the auction of the farmland pursuant to Article 11 (1) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act, which was executed on September 25, 4284, it is clear that the plaintiff had been sold at the same time. The plaintiff's assertion that the sale of the building was invalid and that the sale of the building directly against the defendant can not be discussed without examining the legitimacy of the sale of the building, and that the sale of the building could not be decided by the plaintiff 2 under Article 23 of the Farmland Reform Act because it was not a legitimate one for the first time after the first time after the second time after the second time after the second time after the first time after the second time after the first time after the second time after the first time after the first time after the second time after the first time after the enforcement of the farmland Reform Act, the plaintiff 2 of the same Act does not require the first time after the second time after the second time after the second time after the second time after the enforcement of the farmland Reform Act.

However, according to the records, this building is established according to the facts found in the original judgment, regardless of the Plaintiff’s ownership, and at the authority of September 25, 4284, in selling and disposing of the Plaintiff’s orchard under the Defendant’s management possession to the Defendant pursuant to Article 21 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act, Article 7(1)3 of the same Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and recognized the building under the Defendant’s possession as its accessory structure pursuant to Article 7(1)3 of the same Act and Article 2(2) of the same Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and can be recognized as having been disposed of en bloc. In such a case, the lower court recognized that the Plaintiff’s office’s dismissal of the title of the building under the consideration of its illegality or illegality of its approval and disposition on the ground of the Defendant’s illegal possession should undergo the procedure prescribed in Article 22 subparag. 3 of the same Act, and that the Plaintiff’s dismissal of the building under the premise that the construction of the attached structure cannot be seen as an unlawful construction of the Plaintiff’s building under the Civil Procedure Act.

Justices Kim Jong-chul (Presiding Justice) (Presiding Justice)