It is the land that can not be the object of farmland distribution.

The above land was originally used by the Plaintiff as a water channel and soil collection site, and did not have discontinued its use. Although the Plaintiff was prohibited from using it as a farmland, it is recognized that the previous farmland cultivator was cultivated as a paddy field prior to the Farmland Reform Act due to the Plaintiff’s large cultivation. Thus, the land is not subject to farmland distribution, since it became an issue due to the mother cultivation.

Articles 1 and 5 of the Farmland Reform Act

65Da300 decided May 4, 1965 (Supreme Court Decision 1844, Decision 2(39)1630 decided May 4, 1965)

Eastern Land Improvement Cooperatives

Defendant

Jeonju District Court of the first instance (67A58) and Eup Branch Court of the District Court (67A58)

The appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant shall implement the procedure for registration of cancellation due to the invalidation of the cause in relation to the registration of transfer of ownership, which is the receipt of No. 16101 and No. 16102 on the same day as the same day for the support of No. 16101 and No. 16102 on Dec. 21, 1964, concerning the registration of transfer of ownership as to the registration of transfer of ownership, which is the first day of support for No. 16102 in order to the plaintiff.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The fact that the land stated in the purport of the claim is registered under the name of the defendant is currently a dispute between the parties.

In full view of the testimony of Nonparty 1, 2, 2, 8, and 9 of the above evidence Nos. 1-1, 1-2, 2-2, 8, and 9, the above land was originally owned by the non-party 1 and 2, and it can be acknowledged that the above non-party 3 and the non-party 3-4 were merged into the plaintiff association in 1941, and thus, it became owned by the plaintiff association. Since the above non-party 1 and the non-party 3-2 were the time of establishment without dispute, the above evidence Nos. 5, 6, 7, and the evidence Nos. 8 are presumed to be genuine, and the above witness Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 5 were not identical to the above witness Nos. 1, 3-2, and 9, and the above testimony of the non-party 1 were not identical to the above evidence No. 3-2's original purpose to the plaintiff's right to use the land under the name of the plaintiff's farmland development.

Therefore, since it is obvious that the above transfer of ownership registered in the name of the defendant is null and void due to its lack of cause, the plaintiff's claim seeking the cancellation shall be accepted and the costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the losing party. Accordingly, this appeal against the original judgment with the purport of the same purport is without merit, and the costs of appeal shall be dismissed and the costs of appeal shall

Judges Kim Yong-dae (Presiding Judge)