The case holding that in case where Gap, who has obtained authorization of completion after reclaiming reclaimed land, distributed the reclaimed land to a worker pursuant to the guidelines for the execution of self-support settlement projects and guidance and fostering, and the head of Gun issued farmland distribution certificate to a receiver, a direct rights and obligations relationship between Gap and the above consignee is established.

Where Gap reclaimed reclaimed land and obtained authorization for completion, the ownership shall be attributed to Gap, and Gap shall have an administrative obligation to distribute it in accordance with the guidelines for the implementation of self-support settlement projects and guidance and fostering thereof; however, if Gap distributed it to a beneficiary in accordance with the above guidelines and the head of the Gun issued a farmland distribution certificate with a certificate of distribution to a receiver, it shall be deemed that there was a direct duty relationship between Gap and the above distributors, and it shall not be deemed that there was a status of acquiring anti-private interest.

Article 186 of the Civil Act, Article 14 of the Public Waters Reclamation Act

Supreme Court Decision 92Da9616 delivered on May 26, 1992 (dong) 92Da9623 delivered on May 26, 1992 (dong) 92Da9630 delivered on May 26, 1992 (dong) 92Da9647 delivered on May 26, 1992

Plaintiff 1 and four others

School juristic persons, sublime Private Teaching Institutes

Gwangju District Court Decision 91Na1451 delivered on January 16, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the records, the fact-finding by the court below is acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete hearing.

2. If the facts are as acknowledged by the court below, the process leading to the commencement of a self-support settlement project on the reclaimed land in this case and the completion after obtaining a license for reclamation of public waters is deemed to be a series of acts. Thus, part of the land that was developed before being designated as a self-support settlement business establishment cannot be deemed to be naturally excluded from the target of free distribution. Therefore, it cannot be deemed unlawful on the ground that the court below did not examine whether the land was developed before the designation of self-support settlement business establishment, the deceased non-party, the deceased deceased deceased, was involved in the reclaimed

3. In addition, as acknowledged by the court below, if the above non-party was distributed the land of this case on November 10, 1965 and received a farmland distribution certificate as well as the farmland distribution certificate, it shall be deemed that the above non-party can directly file a claim for the registration of ownership transfer with the defendant, and it shall not be deemed that the above non-party is in the position of acquiring anti-private interests. If the defendant obtained the approval of the completion of reclamation of the reclaimed land of this case, the ownership shall be attributed to the defendant, and the defendant shall have an administrative obligation to distribute the reclaimed land in accordance with the guidelines for the execution of self-support settlement projects and guidance and development, but in this case, the defendant distributed the reclaimed land to the defendant and the Gun delivered the farmland distribution certificate to the receiver, so it shall be deemed that the direct rights and obligations relationship between the defendant and the distribution parties have been established.

4. In addition, the court below is just in rejecting the defendant's assertion that the distribution of the land in this case is null and void in violation of Article 28 of the Private School Act or the extinctive prescription of the right to claim the transfer registration and the defendant's claim for the transfer registration, and there is no error of law by misapprehending

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 Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)