The case holding that a replotting disposition with respect to one parcel of land including 200 square meters in a sectional ownership as a farmland improvement project as prescribed by the Agricultural Community Modernization Promotion Act is not necessarily null and void, and a co-ownership relationship is established.

The case holding that, in case where the ownership was acquired through a distribution of 200 square meters among the land owned by Gap at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, but the entire land of the above one parcel was disposed of as one land by the farmland improvement project under the Agricultural Community Modernization Promotion Act, when the whole land of the above one parcel was disposed of as one land under the farmland improvement project under the Agricultural Community Modernization Promotion Act, since the previous land owned by Eul is equal to 200 square meters, it constitutes a case of monetary liquidation under Article 126 (5) of the same Act, but a disposition of replotting was taken for the entire land of the previous one parcel, and therefore, it is not void

Articles 126 and 129 of the Agricultural Community Modernization Promotion Act

Supreme Court Decision 76Da2104 Decided March 8, 1977 (Gong1977, 9965) decided September 14, 1982 (Gong1982, 941) 91Da4584 Decided April 26, 1991 (Dong)

Epicts

Choi Byung-su, Attorney Yu-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Daejeon District Court Decision 90Na569 delivered on December 27, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal No. 1 are examined.

The lower court, based on its macroficial evidence, found that the Plaintiff acquired ownership by specifying 200 square meters (61 square meters), among the above 29-2 land of 1,326 square meters in Dagnam-gun 29-2, 1,326 square meters, and the above 47-1 forest of 47-1 square meters divided from 47-5 square meters in 47-1, which was originally owned by Nonparty 1. At the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, the Plaintiff was divided into 67 square meters in 1,640 square meters in 67 square meters in 1,640 square meters in 29-2, 200 square meters in 1,640 square meters in 1,67 square meters in 29-7 of this case, and 200 square meters in 1,67 square meters in 37 square meters in 1,670 square meters in 1985 and 174 meters in total among co-inheritors 1673 meters in 1,747.7.

In other words, as examined by the record, the recognition of the above facts by the court below is acceptable, and there is no error in violation of the rules of evidence such as the theory of lawsuit. There is no reason for the argument.

The grounds of appeal No. 2 are examined.

The disposition of replotting taken as part of the farmland improvement project under the Agricultural Community Modernization Promotion Act is a kind of physical administrative act that considers another land with a new parcel number on behalf of the previous land within the implementation zone after the completion of farmland rearrangement project (Supreme Court Decision 80Da2523 delivered on June 23, 1981). Since the previous land owned by the plaintiff is not less than 200 square meters, the previous land of this case is not equal to that of the 200 square meters under Article 126 (5) of the Agricultural Community Modernization Promotion Act, the land substitution shall not be granted, and the money liquidation shall not be made in accordance with the above 200 square meters, but as recognized above, the entire land of the 29-7 1,640 square meters above including the 200 square meters owned by the plaintiff (in the name of the defendant's decedent, it is indicated as the ownership of the previous land). Thus, the plaintiff is justified in the judgment below that the land of this case is not equivalent to the previous land substitution disposition.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)