In case where the Central Land Administration Office has sold farmland to a farmer owned by a domestic legal person established before August 9, 1945 under the military law No. 173, the validity of the disposition

Since the Japanese ownership shares of a domestic corporation established before August 9, 1945, even if they belong to the State, it shall be deemed that real estate owned by the domestic corporation remains the ownership of the said corporation. Therefore, in the event that the Central Land Administration Office sells farmland owned by the said corporation, it shall be deemed that the said farmland has no right to dispose of the said farmland. However, as long as the purchaser cultivated farmland throughout the period before and after the implementation of the Farmland Reform Act before full payment of repaid rice and performed the farmland distribution procedure as long as the purchaser paid full payment to the Government under the said Act, the farmland sale or the farmland distribution procedure has been completed unless there is any ground for invalidation due to the sale of farmland

Article 5 of the Farmland Reform Act, Articles 27-2, 28, and 29 of the Addenda to the Farmland Reform Act

Supreme Court Decision 78Da428 delivered on April 25, 1978

Defendant 1 and 23

Busan District Court (74 Gohap146)

1. The part concerning the deceased defendant 1 in the original judgment is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim against the defendant 2 and 3, which is the lawsuit acceptance of the plaintiff's deceased defendant 1, is dismissed.

2. The appeal against the defendant 4 shall be dismissed;

3. All of the Plaintiff’s appeal is dismissed.

4. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the Plaintiff, the deceased Defendant 1, and his deceased Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 1, who were the parties to the lawsuit of the deceased, shall be borne by the Plaintiff in both the first and second instances, and the part arising from each appeal by the Plaintiff and Defendant 4, respectively, shall be borne by the respective parties.

Plaintiff

(1) On August 2, 1973 with respect to each of the lands listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1, 1, 3,6,7,8,10,11,12,13,14, 17, 18, and 20 on each of the lands listed in the separate sheet No. 1,2,3,6,7,8,8,10,12,17,14, 17, 18, and20 on each of the lands listed in the separate sheet No. 1,328 of receipt of the same registry office on June 19, 1968, and on each of the lands listed in the same list No. 18,19, and 18,19 on June 30, 1970.

(2) On August 12, 1970, the registration of transfer of ownership due to the sale and purchase on July 23, 1970, issued by the same registry office No. 2766, for each of the lands listed in the list No. 6, 7

(3) On August 2, 1973 with respect to each of the lands listed in the 1,3 lists of the same 1,3 lists, the registration of ownership transfer due to sale and purchase on July 31, 1973 by the same 3501, and the registration of ownership transfer due to the division on June 20, 1968 with respect to each of the lands listed in the 1,3 lists of the same 1,3 lists of the same 1,501; and the registration of ownership transfer due to the division on June 30, 1970 with respect to each of the lands listed in the 20 list of the same 1,501 lists of the same 1,501.

(4) As to each land entered in the list No. 1,2,3,6,7,8,8,10,11,12,13,14,17,18,18,20 of the same Act, Defendant 6 shall register partial transfer of ownership due to partial sale on June 19, 1968 and the land entered in the list No. 10 of the same Act as to the land entered in the list No. 10 of the same Act on June 30, 1970;

(5) Defendant 7, on February 14, 1974, shall register the transfer of ownership due to sale and purchase on February 11, 1974, pursuant to the receipt of the same registry on February 14, 1974;

(6) Defendant 8, on March 15, 1974, as the receipt of the same registry office on March 15, 1974, the registration of transfer of ownership due to sale and purchase;

(7) Defendant 9, on December 9, 1971, issued by the same registry office No. 48686 of the same year, shall transfer ownership on September 30 of the same year;

(8) On December 8, 1970, the receipt by the same registry office No. 42705 of the receipt of the same registry office on December 8, 1970, and on August 1 of the same year, the registration of transfer of ownership due to the sale and purchase by the same registry office No. 26422 of the same registry office on June 30 of the same year;

(9) Defendant 11 and 12, on May 15, 1974, pursuant to the receipt of the same registry office No. 27388, on the land entered in the list No. 13, on February 27, 1974;

(10) On April 20, 1974, Defendant 13 received the same registry office No. 22255 on April 20, 1974 on the land entered in the list No. 14, and on the land entered in the list No. 15 on May 15, 1975 on May 15, 200, on the land entered in the list No. 27410 on May 14, 200, on the land entered in the list No. 16 on June 11, 206, on the land entered in the list No. 320505 on the receipt of the same registry office;

(11) Defendant 14, upon receipt of the same registry office on March 6, 1974, has the ownership transfer registration due to sale and purchase as of January 10 of the same year;

(12) On March 6, 1974, Defendant 15 registered the transfer of ownership due to sale and purchase on January 10 of the same year, as the receipt by the same registry office No. 11675 on the land entered in the 19 List;

(13) On July 21, 1972 with respect to each of the lands listed in the list 22,27, Defendant 16, as to the registration of transfer of ownership due to the sale on the date of receipt by the same registry office No. 24152 and each of the lands listed in the list 26,28, the registration of transfer of ownership due to the sale on the date of receipt by the same registry office No. 23704;

(14) Defendant 17, on May 11, 1972, filed by the same registry office No. 15828, with respect to each of the lands entered in the list No. 24,29;

(15) Defendant 18, on October 29, 1970, filed with the same registry office No. 36697 for each of the lands entered in the list No. 25,30;

(16) Defendant 19, on August 22, 1959, registered the transfer of ownership due to the completion of redemption on July 31, 1955, with respect to each of the lands listed in the list Nos. 1 through 30.

(17) Defendant 20: (a) On June 15, 1974, the receipt of the same registry office No. 33373 on June 14, 1974, the registration of transfer of ownership due to partial sale

(18) Defendant 21: (a) on July 21, 1973 with respect to the above land, the registration of transfer of ownership due to sale and purchase on the 20th day of that month, by the receipt of the same registry office;

(19) Defendant 22, on January 12, 1972, with respect to the land entered in the second list, the registration of transfer of ownership following the sale on the 10th of that month, pursuant to the receipt by the same registry office;

(20) On November 11, 1970, Defendant 23 had received the same registry office No. 38352, Oct. 8, 198;

(21) On June 26, 1973, Defendant 24 performed the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration due to sale and purchase on the 5th day of the month when the receipt of the same registry office was issued as No. 27481 on June 26, 1973.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendants.

(1) The purport of the appeal against the defendant 1 and 4

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim against the above defendants is dismissed.

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

(2) The plaintiff's purport of appeal

The part of the original judgment against the other Defendants except the deceased defendant 1 shall be revoked.

The execution of registration procedures for cancellation of each transfer of ownership, such as entry in the purport of the claim, and litigation costs against the remaining Defendants except the deceased Defendant 1 shall be borne by the said Defendants in both the first and second instances.

별지목록기재의 각 토지에 관하여 피고 19앞으로 청구취지기재와 같은 소유권이전등기가 경료되고, 이에 터잡아 청구취지기재와 같이 나머지 피고들 앞으로 각 해당 소유권이전등기가 경료되어 있는 점과 부산 동래구 장전동 400답 1,438평(아래에서는 이 사건 토지라 한다)에서 지목변경과 분할 및 합병등의 절차가 이루어짐으로써 별지목록기재와 같은 지번, 지목, 지적의 토지들이 된 사실은 당사자 사이에 다툼이 없고, 성립에 다툼이 없는 갑 제1호증의 1(등기부등본)의 기재에 원심증인 소외 1의 증언, 원심법원의 형사기록(부산지방검찰청 68형제17528호 피의자 소외 2 외 3명에 대한 허위 공무서작성등 피의사건)에 대한 검증결과 및 변론의 전취지를 모아보면 이사건 토지는 국내에서 설립되고 그 지분이 모두 일본인 소유이던 원고회사가 1945.8.9. 이전에 취득한 비자경농지이었던 사실, 이사건 토지를 포함한 그 부근토지는 1951.6.11.쯤 유엔군이 이를 징발하여 주둔한 이래 1968.7월쯤까지 대한민국 육군 정양원, 육군 제1206공병단 216공병대가 각 주둔하여 그 부대부지로 사용되어 온 사실을 인정할 수 있고, 달리 위 인정을 뒤집을 증거가 없는 바, 원고는 이사건 청구원인으로서 이사건 토지는 1951.6.11.쯤 군부대가 주둔함으로써 사실상 대지화 되었고 피고 19는 이사건 토지를 경작한 바가 없음에도 불구하고, 위 피고는 1957.5.쯤부터 1959.8.쯤까지 사이에 위 장전동지구의 농지위원장이었던 소외 3, 그 농지위원이었던 소외 4와 공모하여 위 피고가 해방전부터 그 무렵까지 경작해 온 것처럼 허위의 경작증명서를 작성한 후, 이를 농지분배신청서에 편철하여 부산시 동래구청에 제출하고, 또한 당시 그 구청 산업과에 근무하는 공무원으로서 농지분배사무를 담당하던 소외 2, 5와 짜고서 농지개혁법시행령 제32조 소정의 절차도 거치지 아니한 채 상황대장등의 농지분배관계서류를 허위 작성함으로써 이에 기하여 앞서 본 바와 같은 피고 19명의의 등기가 경료되었으므로 위의 각 등기는 모두 원인무효로서 말소되어야 한다고 주장하므로 살피건대, 피고 19가 위와 같이 허위의 경작증명서를 작성하고, 농지분배관계서류를 허위 작성하였다는 점에 부합하는 듯한 위 형사기록검증결과는 믿지 아니하고, 달리 이점을 인정할 아무런 증거가 없으며, 다만 성립에 다툼이 없는 을 제1호증(제적등본), 원심증인 소외 5의 증언에 의하여 진정성립을 인정할 수 있는 을 제2호증의 1,2(농지지번별 조서표지 및 그 내용), 을 제3호증의 1,2(상환수납부표지 및 그 내용)의 각 기재에 위 증인 소외 1, 5의 각 증언, 피고 19의 신문결과, 원심법원의 농지분배관계서류에 대한 검증결과 및 변론의 전취지를 모아보면 소외 6이 8.15. 해방전부터 이사건 토지를 경작하여 오던중 1945.1.29. 그 소외인이 사망함으로써 그 아들인 피고 19가 이사건 토지를 계속 경작해 오다가 1948년쯤 과도정부법령 제173호에 의하여 중앙토지행정처로부터 상환곡 33,476석에 불하받아 그 해에 6.72석을 납부하였으나, 위와 같이 군부대가 주둔함으로써 이를 경작하지 못하게되어 그 상환곡의 납부를 지체하여 오다가 1959.7월쯤에 이르러 농지개혁법에 정한 나머지 상환곡으로서 26.72석을 완납하고, 이사건 토지에 관하여 농지개혁법에 따른 농지분배절차가 이루어진 것처럼 농지분배서류를 작성함으로써 피고 19명의의 소유권이전등기가 경료된 사실을 인정할 수 있고, 달리 반증이 없는 바, 원고회사는 1945.8.9. 이전에 설립된 국내법인으로서 그 지분이 모두 일본인 소유였던 사실은 앞서 본 바와 같으므로 그 지분은 국가에 귀속되었으나, 그 소유이던 이사건 토지는 국가에 귀속되지 아니하고 그대로 원고회사 소유로 남아 있다고 할 것이어서 중앙토지행정처로서는 이사건 토지에 관한 처분권이 엇다고 할 것이지만, 한편 중앙토지행정처가 타인소유의 농지를 경작자에게 매각하고, 그 매수인 상환곡을 완납하기 전에 농지개혁법이 시행되어 그 시행 전후에 걸쳐 이를 경작하다가 위 법률에 따른 상환곡을 정부에 완납한 이상 농지매각 내지 농지분배에 따른 상환곡을 정부에 완납한 이상 농지매각 내지 농지분배에 따른 무효원인이 없는 한 농지분배절차가 이루어진 것이라고 봄이 상당하다고 할 것이므로 이사건 토지에 관한 피고 19의 위 등기는 반드시 무효라고 할 수 없다.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit. Since the part concerning the deceased defendant 1 in the original judgment is unfair in its conclusion and it is revoked, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant 2 and 3, which is the defendant 1 in the above defendant's lawsuit acceptance book, is dismissed, and the remaining part concerning the defendants is just in its conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed in its entirety. Since the appeal against the defendant 4 is against the original judgment dismissing the plaintiff's claim, and there is no benefit to appeal against the defendant 4, and it is not possible to correct the defect as well as correct it, it is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the application of Articles 96, 95, and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act with respect to the burden of litigation cost.

Judges fixed right (Presiding Judge) Dasung Kim Tae-tae