[1] Where a specific part of the land scheduled for substitution is completed due to the distribution of farmland, the relationship between the distributor and the previous one

[2] The presumption of ownership transfer registration based on the completion of the repayment of distributed farmland

[3] Whether Article 12 of the former Act on Special Measures for the Adjustment of Farmland Reform Projects applies to farmland for which repayment has been completed by lawful distribution (negative)

[1] In a case where part of one parcel of land is distributed as a non-self-owned farmland and the redemption is completed, even if the registration of transfer of ownership was made by the method of the registration of transfer of co-owned share, the distributor shall acquire the full ownership of the specific part of the land distributed by the completion of repayment, the previous prop and the distributor of the land shall not be deemed to fully lose the ownership of the land distributed, and as registered, the previous prop and the distributor of the land shall not be deemed to share all the land as registered. In a case where a land readjustment project is already being implemented at the time of the distribution of farmland and the farmland in the land scheduled for replotting was distributed after the designation of the land scheduled for replotting was already made, if the ownership of the land was finally acquired in the status of the land scheduled for replotting and the replotting became final and conclusive, only

[2] In a case where a certificate of farmland distribution is issued as a result of a farmland distribution procedure and a registration of ownership transfer is made on the ground of completion of repayment, the land shall be presumed to have been legally distributed, unless there are special circumstances, such as that the land is not farmland or it does not fall under any subparagraph of Article 5 of the former Farmland Reform Act (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the Farmland Act, Act No. 4817 of December 22, 1994).

[3] In a case where a lawsuit is filed against the State regarding farmland, the repayment of which has been lawfully distributed, the provisions of Article 12 of the former Act on Special Measures for Adjustment of Farmland Reform Projects (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the Farmland Act, Act No. 4817 of Dec. 22, 1994) shall not apply.

[1] Articles 5, 11, and 16-2 of the former Farmland Reform Act (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the Farmland Act, Act No. 4817 of Dec. 22, 1994), Article 48 of the Land Readjustment Project Act, Article 186 of the Civil Code / [2] Articles 5, 11, and 16-2 of the former Farmland Reform Act (repealed by Article 2 of Addenda to the Farmland Act, Act No. 4817 of Dec. 22, 1994), Article 32 of the former Farmland Reform Act (repealed by Article 2 of Addenda to the Farmland Act, Presidential Decree No. 14835 of Dec. 22, 1995), Article 186 of the Civil Code / [3] Article 12 of the Addenda to the former Farmland Reform Act (repealed by Act No. 4817 of Dec. 22, 1994), Article 184 of the former Farmland Reform Act (repealed by Article 192 of the Farmland Act)

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 82Da134 delivered on September 14, 1982 (Gong1982, 941) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 67Da1028 delivered on December 26, 1969 (No. 17-4, 225), Supreme Court Decision 88Da3090, 30917 delivered on August 8, 1989 (Gong1989, 1357), Supreme Court Decision 91Da4591 delivered on April 26, 1991 (Gong191, 1594) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 71Da2341 delivered on February 22, 197 (No. 200-1, 95) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 80Da138380 delivered on July 138, 197 (No. 1970)

Plaintiff 1 and two others (Attorneys Hwang Jae-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

[Defendant-Appellant] Republic of Korea and two others (Attorney Lee Jin-jin, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 93Na13515 delivered on July 21, 1995

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

1. We examine the grounds of appeal by Defendant Republic of Korea and the grounds of appeal by Defendants 2 and 3 as well as the grounds of appeal by Defendants 2 and 3.

In the event that farmland falling under Article 5 (2) of the Farmland Reform Act enters into force of the same Act and the government purchases the ownership thereof as a matter of course at the time of the enforcement of the same Act, and the ownership transfer registration is transferred to a receiver without registration even after the completion of the repayment of the receiver's land, and where the repayment of part of the land has been completed as non-self-owned farmland, he shall acquire the complete ownership of the specific portion distributed upon the completion of the repayment, and the previous landowner shall lose the ownership of the land. The previous landowner and the receiver shall not be deemed to share all the land as registered. If a land readjustment project is already being implemented at the time of the distribution of farmland and the farmland in the land reserved for replotting was distributed after the designation of the land reserved for replotting, if the previous owner of the land becomes finally entitled to acquire the ownership of the land at the time of the land reserved for replotting and a replotting disposition becomes final and conclusive, the ownership of the remaining portion of the land in the previous land is not to be jointly owned (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Da136268, Sept. 16, 2966, 197, 198).

On February 9, 1942, the court below found that the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were not entitled to the above non-party 3 share transfer registration on the non-party 1 and the non-party 3 share transfer registration on the non-party 2's land because the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were not entitled to the above non-party 3 share transfer registration on the non-party 2's land due to the non-party 3 share transfer registration on the non-party 1's land and the non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 3 share transfer registration on the non-party 2's non-party 3 share transfer registration on the non-party 1's land due to the non-party 2's non-party 3 share transfer registration on the non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 3 share transfer registration on the non-party 1's own land and the non-party 2's non-party 3 share transfer registration on the non-party 2's share.

2. We examine the first ground for appeal by Defendant 2 and Defendant 3’s attorney.

Unless there are special circumstances such as the issuance of a certificate of farmland distribution and the registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of completion of repayment, the land in question shall be presumed to have been legitimately distributed farmland unless it falls under any subparagraph of Article 5 of the Farmland Reform Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 82Da134, Sept. 14, 1982; Supreme Court Decision 71Da2341, Feb. 22, 1972). The court below acknowledged that the land in this case was legally distributed to Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 3 under the Farmland Reform Act by evidence, such as evidence Nos. 5-1, 2 (Indication of Farmland Allocation and Contents), and 6 (Redemption Register), and it is reasonable to recognize that the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the presumption of violation of the rules of evidence and reimbursement, or in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the presumption of presumption of facts against the rules of evidence and reimbursement, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. The grounds of appeal No. 3 by Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 are examined.

Article 12 of the Act on Special Measures for the Adjustment of Farmland Reform Projects shall not apply to a lawsuit claiming ownership transfer registration against the State regarding farmland that has been duly distributed and the repayment of which has been completed (see Supreme Court Decision 70Da2301, Nov. 30, 1970). In the same purport, the court below's rejection of the assertion by Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 as it was unlawful since the lawsuit in this case was brought after one year, which is the period of filing the lawsuit stipulated in Article 12 of the above Act, was justified, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the Farmland Reform Act and the above Act, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

4. Therefore, all appeals are 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 Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)