Cases where farmland distribution is deemed to be null and void as a matter of course;

In the farmland distribution procedure, when the farmland to be distributed to the interested parties are specified and indicated in the farmland distribution schedule to the extent that it is possible to raise an objection to the distribution, the farmland distribution shall be deemed null and void as a matter of course, and in case where the farmland distribution is made in the sight table that is not specified as such, the farmland distribution shall be deemed null and void. Thus, if the farmland to be distributed is entered in the sight table at 100 square and 250 square out of 3600 square and the farmland to be distributed, it is objectively indicated that the location of the farmland to be distributed cannot be identified from the land to the extent that the farmland distribution is an invalid disposition without going through legitimate sight.

Article 22 of the Farmland Reform Act, Article 32 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act

Supreme Court Decision 68Da880 delivered on July 31, 1968 (Kakadd. 8549; Supreme Court Decision 16BDo334 delivered on July 17, 1968; Decision 22(60)1802, 1803 delivered on December 17, 1968

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and three others

Busan District Court (71 Gohap322)

The appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant, etc.

As to the real estate in the attached list No. 1, the defendant 1 was received on Aug. 27, 1965 by Busan District Court, Busan District Court, Busan District Court, Law No. 162 on Aug. 24, 1965, and due to the completion of repayment on July 24, 1967, the defendant 2 caused the sale on July 8, 1967 by the above registry office No. 15259 on the real estate in the attached list No. 1, and the defendant 3 caused the sale on June 30 of the same year as to the real estate in the attached list No. 2, No. 5127, Oct. 13, 1959 on the real estate in the attached list No. 2, and the defendant 4 received on Oct. 27, 1968 on the real estate in the attached list No. 2, and caused the sale on Feb. 27, 1968.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant, etc.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

The litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff through the first and second trials.

All two parcels of the previous real estate in the attached list are divided into five parts of 154, 154-1 forest land in Busan-dong, Busan-dong, Busan-dong, Busan-do, and it was originally divided into five parts of 154-1 forest land, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the plaintiff's future. As to the real estate in the attached list Nos. 1, 1,2, and the real estate in the attached list No. 2,3, the registration of ownership transfer is presumed to have been completed due to the distribution as the cause of the cause, since there is no dispute between the parties, since the registration of ownership transfer, such as the entry in the claim in the attached list No. 2, 3, was passed through the registration of ownership transfer as stated in the claim in the attached list No. 2,4, and the registration of ownership transfer in the future of the defendant 1, 3, and the above real estate was completed due to the distribution as a forest at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, notwithstanding the absence of distribution as farmland.

However, according to Article 22 of the Farmland Reform Act, an interested party who has an objection to the above matters of enforcement of the farmland law can file an objection again with the Committee on the Location of the farmland. Article 32 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that if an objection is not filed during the above period 10 days from the Gu of the location of the farmland, Si, Eup, or Myeon, or from the point of view, the land lot No. 2 shall be conducted on the whole lot to determine the distribution of the farmland. The purport of the above provision is to specify the farmland to be distributed and to give the public an opportunity to raise an objection to the distribution of the farmland, so it is necessary to indicate a specific extent to which the interested party can raise an objection against the distribution of the farmland, and if an interested party cannot raise an objection to the distribution of the farmland under the attached Table No. 30, which is the first 6, to the extent that it can be objectively known that there is no objection to the distribution of the farmland under the attached Table No. 1, which is part of the original distribution of the farmland. 2.

Therefore, the defendant et al. is obligated to perform the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration in the name of the plaintiff with respect to the land in this case. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for transfer of the plaintiff is justified, and this purport of the original judgment is just and without merit, and therefore, the appeal by the defendant et al. is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 384, 95, 89, and 93 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Attachment List]

Judges Choi Hon-ro (Presiding Judge) Kim Jong-ju