Whether farmland not distributed within the period under Article 2 (3) of the Act on Special Measures for the Adjustment of Farmland Reform Projects among the farmland returned by a distributor who was purchased from the State and distributed to a receiver by the implementation of the Farmland Reform Act, among the farmland returned to the Government, shall be reverted to the ownership of the original owner (affirmative)

Farmland returned to the Government pursuant to Article 19 (1) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Special Measures for Farmland Reform by a person who has purchased farmland from the State and distributed it to a receiver following the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act shall be included in farmland to be registered as a state-owned member under Article 2 (1) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Special Measures for Farmland Reform, and even in such farmland, farmland not distributed pursuant to paragraph (2) of the same Article within the period under paragraph (3) of the same Article shall be returned to the original owner after the expiration of the period for distribution and the purchase of the State is rescinded.

Article 19(1) of the Farmland Reform Act, Article 2 of the Act on Special Measures for Adjustment of Farmland Reform Projects, Article 1(2)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 100 (Gong1981, 14204, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff

Korea

Daegu District Court Decision 92Na754 delivered on April 29, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Farmland returned to the Government pursuant to Article 19 (1) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Special Measures for the Adjustment of Farmland Improvement Projects is included in farmland to be registered as a state-owned property pursuant to Article 2 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Special Measures for the Adjustment of Farmland, and even in such farmland, farmland not distributed pursuant to paragraph (2) of the same Article within the period under paragraph (3) of the same Article has expired, and at the same time, the purchase disposition of the State has expired, and it shall be returned to the original owner (see Supreme Court Decision 81Meu100, July 28, 1981). According to the records, the real estate in this case was purchased from the State as the deceased non-party 1, which was owned by the deceased non-party 1, but was distributed to the deceased non-party 2, but was returned to the Government due to the waiver of distribution period, and thus, it cannot be found that the above deceased non-party 1's ownership was returned to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the judgment below's judgment below is justified.

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and all costs of appeal shall be 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)