1. A person who has reverted to the enforcement of the Act on Special Measures for the Adjustment of Farmland Reform Projects and non-divided farmland seed rights;

2. Whether there is any benefit in cancelling the additional registration under Article 17 (1) of the State Property Act;

1. The State's purchase of non-self-owned farmland shall be acquired on the condition that the farmland is not distributed. Therefore, the farmland in this case is not yet distributed according to the procedure for confirmation of distribution of farmland and the farmland except the farmland to be registered or distributed as state-owned property under Article 2 (2) of the Act on Special Measures for Adjustment of Farmland Reform Projects (No. 1993, Mar. 13, 1968) has been decided not to be distributed simultaneously with the implementation of the Act on Special Measures for the Development of Farmland, and the purchase

2. The registration of addition under Article 17(1) of the State Property Act is merely an addition to the indication of title holder, and there is no benefit to seek the cancellation of the registration against the right holder in addition to the request for cancellation of registration against the right holder.

Article 2 of the Act on Special Measures for Adjustment of Farmland Reform Projects, Article 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Special Measures for Adjustment of Farmland Reform Projects, Article 17 of the State Property Act (Act No. 2163)

Supreme Court Decision 75Da793 delivered on January 13, 1976

Plaintiff

Korea

Busan District Court (73Gahap912)

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The defendant shall execute the procedure for the cancellation registration of the registration of the preservation of ownership in the name of the defendant under Article 11 of the Farmland Reform Act, as the Busan District Court No. 9283 of Nov. 7, 1960, which was received on Nov. 7, 1960, against the plaintiff on the first 858 Seo-ri City, Ulsan-do.

The request for the cancellation of the registration procedure by the office of administration under Act No. 2163 of Jan. 1, 1970 to the National Tax Service of the defendant, which was received on May 3, 1973 by the above registry office as to the above real estate against the defendant, shall be dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

In addition to the fact that the procedure for cancellation of registration of addition as referred to in paragraph (3) of this Article is sought, it shall be the same as the entry in the text.

There is no dispute between the parties on the fact that the registration of preservation of ownership of the defendant's name and the registration of additional registration has been made to the National Tax Service by the Office of Administration, such as the entries.

The plaintiff's attorney, as the head of the main stream, is the plaintiff's representative, although the land was originally purchased by the non-party 1 who was the deceased party 1 at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, and was not a farmland subject to purchase under the same Act, the defendant purchased it as a non-self-owned farmland falling under Article 5 (2) (b) of the same Act, and completed the preservation registration of the name. Thus, it is hard to believe that each statement of evidence Nos. 3, 4, and 5, witness of the court below, witness of the court below, and witness non-party 3 of the court below and witness non-party 2 of the party branch office, each testimony of the non-party 2, the court below, and witness of the party branch office are consistent with it, and there is no other material to view that the plaintiff's right to the land was presumed to have been purchased by the State on the register and was excluded from purchase under the Farmland Reform Act

Then, with respect to the plaintiff's conjunctive master plan, in full view of the statements in Gap evidence No. 1, 2, 2, 3 and each statement in Eul evidence No. 1, 2, and 3, the farmland of this case was purchased from the government as non-party No. 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1'

In light of the legislative spirit of Article 5 of the Farmland Reform Act, even if the farmland in this case is purchased from the State and is currently cultivated as farmland, it is obvious that the Government purchases farmland from a person other than a farmer under the provisions of Article 5 of the same Act to distribute the farmland to a farmer. Thus, the State should acquire farmland on the condition that the purchased farmland will not be distributed later. The farmland in this case is not yet distributed under the procedure for confirmation of distribution of farmland, as seen earlier. Thus, considering the purpose of Article 1 of the Act on Special Measures for the Adjustment of Farmland Reform (Act No. 1993 of March 13, 1968) and the purport of Article 2 of the same Act, the purpose of the enactment of the same Act and the purport of the provision of Article 2 of the same Act, which were acquired by the Government under the provisions of Article 5 of the same Act, become final and conclusive at the same time, and is not distributed to the farmland in this case, and there is no problem that the farmland in this case is distributed to the State under the provisions of Article 2 of the same Act.

However, although the defendant's litigation performer asserts that the procedure of distribution was not finalized because he forged the documents related to the plaintiff's public office and obstructed the distribution procedure of the farmland, the defendant's above defense dispute cannot be adopted because there is no sufficient evidence to acknowledge it even if it is based on the defendant's prior proof.

In other words, the defendant's assertion that the defendant has occupied this parcel of land in a peaceful manner with the intention of ownership for 10 years from November 7, 1960, the ownership of which was registered as the owner. However, there is no sufficient evidence to acknowledge that the defendant occupied this parcel of land during that period, and it cannot be deemed that the defendant acquired this parcel of farmland under the condition of rescission that it will not be distributed as the owner's intention in view of the nature of the source of right. Thus, there is no reason to believe that the above assertion by the defendant's performer is without merit.

Thus, the defendant is obligated to cancel the registration of preservation of ownership of the farmland above in his name and return it to the plaintiff, who is the heir of the non-party 1 to the original owner.

Next, according to Article 17 (1) of the State Property Act and the State Property Act (amended by Act No. 2163 of Jan. 1, 1970), with respect to the plaintiff's claim seeking the cancellation of the registration of the addition under paragraph (3) of the same Article, the name of the holder of the right who requires the registration of real estate and other rights shall be the State, but the name of the Office of Administration shall be added. The so-called additional registration under the same provision shall not be related to any change in the relation of the rights of the State property, but shall be added to the name of the Office of Administration in addition to the indication of the holder of the right. The additional registration shall be accompanied by the name of the holder of the right in its nature, and it shall be accompanied by the change of the holder of the right and the name of the Office of Administration of the property. Therefore, the part of the plaintiff's claim shall not be dismissed as it is found that there is no interest in the lawsuit.

Therefore, the part of the plaintiff's claim for cancellation of the registration of initial ownership relating to this case's real estate shall be justified and accepted, and the part of the claim for cancellation of the above additional registration shall be dismissed. Since the original judgment is unfair by different conclusions, the original judgment shall be revoked pursuant to Article 386 of the Civil Procedure Act, and it shall be decided as per Disposition by applying Article 96, Article 92, and Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Act as to the burden of litigation costs.

Judges Park Jae-sik (Presiding Judge)