1. The Defendant shall stay at the Daegu District Court with respect to B 1,727 square meters and C 460 square meters at the time of residing in the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 9, 1945, B No. 786 was registered as owned by a medium-sized mining company, a Japanese corporation, as of August 9, 194.

B. Around 1950, the Defendant distributed B response 786 square meters to the Plaintiff’s father-net D (Death on April 20, 1991) pursuant to the former Farmland Reform Act (amended by Act No. 31 of Jun. 21, 194, and repealed by Act No. 4817, Dec. 22, 1994) at the time of the said division permanently residing before the said division.

C. On May 31, 1965, the Plaintiff’s father D was issued with a repayment certificate stating that he completed the repayment of the said farmland by the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry.

On January 17, 1966, the defendant filed for registration of preservation of ownership with the Daegu District Court No. 311 on the receipt of machinery, such as resident support, etc. with respect to B PY 786 at the time of stay before subdivision.

E. Around 786 to 1984 at the time of the permanent residence before the division was divided into Category C 460 square meters. As of the date of closing argument in the instant case, entry in the title section on the registry as of the date of closing argument in the instant case is one thousand and seven27 square meters at the time of permanent residence, and three 460 square meters at the time of permanent residence

(F) The Plaintiff independently succeeded to D’s property on April 20, 1991, as the network D died.

[Reasons for Recognition] The purport of the whole pleadings, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8 (including the number of branch offices), Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. A person who completed the repayment of the cost of farmland for the determination of the cause of the claim shall acquire ownership of the distributed farmland completely without registration under the former Farmland Reform Act.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 78Da2209, Mar. 13, 1979). Moreover, it cannot be deemed that a person who acquired a complete ownership without registration under the former Farmland Reform Act upon completion of the payment of farmland was disqualified on the ground that he/she did not complete the registration within three years from the enforcement date of the Farmland Act.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da43856, Oct. 11, 2007). This case’s case.