Land subject to urban planning facilities shall be excluded from the application of the Farmland Reform Act regardless of whether urban planning projects are finalized or not.

The land subject to urban planning facilities shall be excluded from the application of the Farmland Reform Act regardless of whether urban planning projects are finalized or not.

Articles 49 and 2 of the Urban Planning Act

Supreme Court Decision 66Da972 delivered on July 26, 1966

Plaintiff 1 and one other, Attorney Lee Tae-hee, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 others

Seoul High Court Decision 67Na2927 delivered on March 13, 1968

The defendants' appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendants.

1. The grounds of appeal by Defendant Republic of Korea litigation performers and the grounds of appeal by the Gyeonggi-do litigation representatives are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, Article 49 of the Urban Planning Act (the original judgment was marked as Article 48 of the same Act, but it is not erroneous) provides that the Farmland Reform Act shall not apply to the land subject to facilities as stipulated in each subparagraph of Article 2 of the same Act as the land within the urban planning zone, and that the land within the urban planning zone, which is the land subject to facilities as stipulated in each subparagraph of Article 2 of the Urban Planning Act, shall be excluded from the application of the Farmland Reform Act regardless of whether or not the urban planning project becomes final and conclusive. Thus, with respect to the land, it is obvious that the urban planning project is the land subject to Article 2 of the Urban Planning Act, and that it is clearly clear that the land is the land subject to the urban planning zone, which is the land subject to facilities, and therefore, the purchase of the land has not been invalidated under the Farmland Reform Act unless the urban planning project becomes final and conclusive, the argument that the purchase of the land by the defendant under the Farmland Reform Act has not been invalidated as it is without merit.

2. We examine the first ground for appeal by Defendant Gyeonggi-do.

According to the reasoning of the judgment in the original judgment, the purport of the original judgment that points out the land in question is once the land purchased to the defendant Republic of Korea is returned to the state that is not purchased due to the fulfillment of the cancellation condition that the land will not be distributed as farmland, and the ownership was returned from the defendant Republic of Korea to the plaintiffs who are the original props of the defendant Republic of Korea, so the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant is null and void as the registration of the unentitled person, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles

3. Therefore, with the assent of all participating judges, the defendants' appeals are all 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 judges.

Supreme Court Judge Ma-dong (Presiding Judge) Ma-dong (Presiding Judge)