(a) The purport of Article 28 of the Farmland Reform Act;

(b) The validity of the distribution of farmland made pursuant to the provisions of Act No. 173 of South and North Korean Government Act;

A. Article 28 of the Farmland Reform Act only provides for the enforcement of the same Act and the effect of an agreement or a disposition by an administrative agency of the conflict with the provisions of the same Act on the part of the former Act, in light of the fact that the government acquires farmland and distributes farmland to farmers in accordance with the procedures set forth in Article 1 of the same Act, and thereby altering ownership and farming relations with the previous farmland, and it does not purport to lose the validity of an agreement or a disposition by an administrative agency of the parties that conflict with the provisions of the same Act.

B. Under the purpose of Article 27-2 of the Farmland Reform Act, the provisions of Article 173 of the Southern Line and the Do Government Act concerning the allocation of reverted farmland cannot be deemed to be a statute that is contrary to the spirit of the Farmland Reform Act for the fundamental purpose of distributing farmland to farmers. In addition, if the farmland was distributed to the farmer under the provisions of subparagraph 173 of the above Act according to the agreement between the farmland cultivator and the land administrative office, which is a government-invested authority, the validity of the agreement or distribution shall not be deemed to be null and void pursuant to Article 28 of the Farmland Reform Act, and if the amount of the farmland was paid in full by the government, the validity of the agreement or distribution shall be the same as the completion

Article 28 of the Farmland Reform Act, Article 173 of the Southern and Do Government Act, Article 12 of the Farmland Reform Act

(b) Supreme Court Decision 71Da1514 delivered on January 31, 1972

Plaintiff 1 and two others, Attorneys Han-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 86Na1698 delivered on December 30, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigation performer are examined together.

Article 28 of the Farmland Reform Act, for the purpose specified in Article 1 of the same Act, provides that the provisions of the same Act, which conflict with the former Act, in light of the fact that the government acquires farmland and distributes it to farmers in accordance with the procedures set forth in the same Act, has been enforced at the same time as the enforcement of the same Act, and that the conflict with the former Act, at the same time, shall lose the validity of the provisions of the Acts and subordinate statutes, and it is clear that the purport of the conflict with the provisions of the Acts and subordinate statutes is not to lose the validity of the agreement of the parties or the disposition of the administrative authorities. Furthermore, even though the method of distributing farmland is different from that of the Farmland Reform Act, the provisions of Article 173 of the same Act and subordinate statutes, which clearly stipulate the purpose of distributing farmland to farmers, cannot be said to be contrary to the spirit of the Farmland Reform Act, and therefore, it cannot be said that the purpose of the said Act and subordinate statutes is to uniformly make the farmland to be disposed of pursuant to subparagraph 173 of the same Article.

In the same way, since the farmland in this case was distributed to the farmer under the provisions of subparagraph 173 of the above Act in accordance with the agreement between the plaintiffs' preemptive rights and the land administrative office, which is the government authorities, as recognized by the court below, the validity of the agreement or distribution cannot be deemed null and void under Article 28 of the Farmland Reform Act, and if the amount of the repayment was paid in full to the government, the agreement or distribution shall be deemed null and void, and if the amount of the repayment was paid in full, it shall be deemed that the payment was completed and the repayment was completed under the Farmland Reform Act (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 63Da505 delivered on May 12, 1964; Supreme Court Decision 71Da

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, on the premise of the above opinion, the court below rejected all the defendant's defense on the ground that the defendant's distribution of farmland pursuant to Article 173 of the above Act cannot be deemed to lose its validity due to the execution of the Farmland Reform Act, and the above distribution contract cannot be deemed to have been cancelled for the reasons as stated in its reasoning, and the plaintiff's representative in the farmland distribution contract of this case cannot exercise the right of ownership acquisition and the right of claim for ownership transfer registration before the payment of the purchase price is completed. Thus, the court below rejected all the defendant's defense on the ground that the defendant's defense is not in progress, and the measure that the plaintiffs ordered the defendant to implement the procedure for registration of ownership transfer of the land of this case on the ground of the completion of the repayment of the purchase price as of November 13, 1985 on the ground that the above purchase price was paid to the defendant is just and there is no error of law

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 Lee B-soo (Presiding Justice)