The validity of distribution of farmland in a case where a person who received a distribution of farmland was dissatisfyed with a second country's civilian disease before repayment is completed and the right to cultivate was entrusted to another person.

Even if the farmland has been distributed and the farmland has been cultivated by entrusting another person with the cultivation before the completion of the repayment, so long as the farmland has not been returned to the Government in accordance with the procedures under Article 52 of the Enforcement Rule of this Act, it shall not be deemed that it constitutes a dual farming due to the removal under

Article 19 (1) of the Farmland Reform Act

65Da80 delivered on April 6, 1965

Plaintiff

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 67Na1137 decided Feb. 22, 1968

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Judgment on the grounds of appeal by Defendant Song-young and fingerprinting as to each of the defendant's grounds of appeal.

According to the decision of the court below, at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, at 294, the plaintiff was cultivated and repaid with farmland distribution and the plaintiff was unable to cultivate as a second citizen's disease on December 1952. Thus, on March 21, 1953, the non-party received gold 7,000 won from the non-party, and transferred the farmland to the Dong, and transferred it to the Dong by the Dong Dong for cultivation, and on March 21, 1953, the non-party transferred the right to cultivate again to the defendant to the 11,000 won (at that time the money was distributed to the defendant), entered as if the defendant was distributed the previous money in the repayment ledger, and paid the remaining repayment by the plaintiff to the defendant, and the transfer registration of ownership due to the completion of repayment in the name of the defendant.

However, it cannot be deemed that the original judgment was erroneous or incomplete due to the fact that the Plaintiff entrusted the Plaintiff’s cultivation to the Nonparty to the second citizen’s disease. In addition, even if the Plaintiff received distribution of the farmland in this case and transferred the farmland to another person before the repayment was completed, insofar as the Plaintiff did not return the farmland to the Government by following the procedure under Article 52 of the Enforcement Rule of the Farmland Reform Act, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff constitutes a dual farming due to the moving-out under Article 19(1) of the same Act (see Supreme Court Decision 65Da80, Apr. 6, 1965). Moreover, the original judgment with the purport that the farmland distribution to the Plaintiff cannot be deemed null and void as a matter of course on the ground that the Plaintiff transferred the right to cultivate to the Nonparty before the repayment was completed on the sole ground that the Plaintiff transferred the right to cultivate to the Nonparty, and even if the ownership of the Defendant’s assertion was considered as farmland sale and sale, according to the fact that the farmland was actually transferred before the repayment was completed, it cannot be deemed that the legal relationship with the Defendant’s legal relationship established.

Therefore, the appeal is without merit, and the costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices of the Supreme Court Dog-gu (Presiding Judge) Dog-Jak and Mag-gu Mag-gu