Whether or not a person who has purchased farmland from a person who has completed repayment with distribution of farmland after the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Transfer of Distribution Farmland has lost its effect on the right to claim the registration of transfer

On June 21, 1949, Nonparty 3 received distribution from the State under the Farmland Reform Act and completed redemption on December 8, 1956 without completing the registration of ownership transfer, sold to Nonparty 1 on January 7, 1958, and failed to complete the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of repayment in the future during the period of implementing the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Ownership of Distribution Farmland by Nonparty 1, the de facto owner, and passed on June 30, 1965, the State, which did not reach an agreement on the registration of non-party 3’s interim omission, has no obligation to implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer directly to Nonparty 1.

Article 2 of the Act on Special Measures for the Transfer of Distribution Farmland Ownership

Plaintiff

Korea

Daegu District Court (73 Gohap641) in the first instance

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

On December 8, 1956, the defendant implemented the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of the completion of redemption on December 8, 1956, concerning the non-party 1, Nam-gu, Daegu-si, 1225-18 large 25-18 large 250 square meters, Nam-gu, Daegu-gu.

The same shall apply to the order.

The 365 No. 1120, Nam-gu, Daegu-gu, Daegu-si was registered as the 1761 registration number of the Daegu District Court, Seogu-gu, Daegu-si. The number, land category, and land register were changed from 1225-18 to 250, 1225-18 to 250, which became the land improvement project, and the registration number No. 4924 was changed, and Non-party 3 cultivated the land, which was originally owned by Non-party 2, and was distributed under the Farmland Reform Act on June 21, 1949, and completed the redemption on December 8, 1956, and did not complete the registration of ownership transfer, and Non-party 1 sold the land to the plaintiff on June 14, 1962, and the registration of ownership transfer was not completed by the defendant under Article 276 of the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Distribution Farmland Ownership.

The plaintiff's legal representative argues that the registration of the preservation of the defendant's name on June 14, 1962 as to the above land is null and void as the second double registration. Thus, the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for the registration of the transfer of ownership on the ground of the completion of repayment on December 8, 1956 to the non-party 1 who was the de facto owner pursuant to Article 2 of the above special measures. Thus, the plaintiff claims that the non-party 1 is responsible for the performance of his obligation on behalf of the plaintiff 1. Therefore, the registration of the transfer of ownership against the non-party 1 is null and void as it is in the second double registration. Accordingly, the defendant is liable for the registration of the transfer of ownership on the ground of the completion of repayment. The non-party 1 is the non-party 3, and the non-party 1 is the purchaser after the lapse of June 30, 1965. Thus, if the plaintiff proves that an agreement between the above third party registration was made after the cancellation of the above special measures.

Therefore, since the original judgment with the different conclusion that the plaintiff's claim for objection should be dismissed without merit is unfair, it shall be revoked by the defendant's appeal, and it shall be so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 95 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation costs.

Judges Kang Jae-hee (Presiding Judge)