The validity of a distribution disposition for farmland developed at the time of distribution under the Farmland Reform Act;

If farmland distribution is to be effective, it shall be farmland at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, as well as at the time of the actual disposition of distribution. Therefore, farmland at the time of enforcement of the Act was farmland, but the farmland distribution in cases where the phenomenon of land has already been changed to the site at the time of actual distribution is null and void.

Articles 2 and 5 of the Farmland Reform Act

Supreme Court Decision 62Da838 delivered on July 27, 1965 (Supreme Court Decision 1770Da1770 delivered on September 17, 1968, Article 6(5)1650 of the Farmland Reform Act, Article 11(70), Article 11(70)165 delivered on August 29, 1967 (Supreme Court Decision 15Na257 delivered on July 27, 196, Article 5(73)1642 of the summary of the decision and Article 5(73), Article 68Da208 delivered on September 17, 1968

Countries

Defendant 1 and nine others

Busan District Court (68Ga1742)

Each appeal by the Defendants is dismissed.

Each appeal cost shall be borne by the defendants.

. The defendant 2. The receipt and sale of the same list No. 5 2. The Busan High Registry of 1960.8.25 27.4 195 2. The defendant 3.4 2. The receipt and sale of the same list No. 1963.5 1.6 1.4 1.6 1.4 5 2. 196 1. 3 197. 196 1. 2. 196 1. 4 1. 5 1. 2. 196 1. 1. 5 2. 196 1. 3. 196 1. 5 1. 196 4. 196 1. 196 4. 196 1. 196 1. 196 1. 2. 196 3. 196 14. 196

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendants.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff through the first and second trials.

살피건대, 별지목록에 기재된 토지중 1,2가 소외 1 앞으로 같은 3,4기재 토지가 소외 2 앞으로 5,6기재 토지가 피고 2 앞으로, 7기재 토지가 소외 3 앞으로, 8기재 토지가 소외 4 앞으로, 9,10기재 토지가 피고 4 앞으로, 12-24 기재 토지가 피고 10 앞으로, 14-16,18,20,21 각 기재 토지가 소외 5 앞으로, 25기재 토지가 피고 6 앞으로, 26기재 토지가 소외 6 앞으로, 27기재 토지가 소외 7 앞으로(이상에 나온 각 소외인들은 제1심에서 피고들이었으나 모두 패소하여 불복을 하지 않았다) 각 상환완료를 원인으로 한 소유권이전등기가 경유된 후 다시 청구취지 기재와 같은 매매, 화해들을 원인으로 한 소유권이전등기가 각 경유된 사실은 당사자간에 다툼이 없는 바 성립에 다툼이 없는 갑 3,4호증의 각 1,2, 갑 5,6,9호증, 갑 12호증의 1-3, 갑 14호증의 1,2, 갑 15호증, 갑 21,22호증, 을 3-5호증, 을 8호증, 을 9호증의 1-12, 을 10호증, 을 12호증, 을 14호증의 1,2의 각 기재내용과 원심증인 소외 8, 9, 10, 11의 각 증언 및 피고 4의 본인심문의 결과(단, 위 증인 소외 10, 11, 피고 4의 본인심문결과의 1부중 뒤에 믿지 않는 부분 제외)와 당원의 현장검증결과 및 당사자변론의 전취지를 종합하면 앞서 말한 각 토지는 원래 모두가 귀속농지였으나 농지개혁법시행 당시에 그것이 부산시의 토지구획정리사업지구내에 편입되어 있은 관계로 분배가 되지 않았다가 6.25사변이 발발하여 1951.3.9.에는 UN군이 이를 점거하여 사용하다가 1955.10.4.부터는 국군이 인수하여 별지목록 21기재 토지는 1958.11.18.까지 나머지 토지들은 모두 1960. 이후까지 계속 점거하여 위의 군이 점거한 이래 대지가 되었는데 앞서 말한 각 소외인들 또는 피고 2, 4, 6들이 1956.6.경부터 1959.12.경 사이에 걸쳐 각 해당부분의 토지에 대한 농개법에 의한 분배신청을 하여 분배를 받고 상환을 완료한 후 청구취지 기재와 같은 각 등기를 경유한 사실을 인정할 수 있고 위 인정에 반하여 문제의 각 토지가 위 분배신청 당시에도 계속 농경지였다든가 또는 위의 각 토지가 농개법시행 당시에 실제 분배되었는데 군의 주둔으로 상환이 중단되어 있었다는데 관한 갑 6,7, 을 6, 을 13호증의 1-3, 을 16호증의 각 1부 기재와 원심증인 소외 10, 11, 12, 13, 당심증인 소외 6, 14, 15, 16들의 각 1부 증언이나 원심의 기록검증의 결과 1부는 앞서 당원이 받아들인 각 증거에 비추어 믿을 수 없고 그외 이 점에 관한 아무런 반증도 없다. 농지의 분배가 유효하려면 그 분배대상 농지가 농개법시행 당시의 농지이어야 함은 물론 실제 분배처분이 있을 당시에도 그것이 농지여야 할 것인데 이 사건에 있어서는 앞서 말한 바와 같이 문제의 토지가 실제 분배될 당시의 현황이 이미 농지가 아니고 대지였다 할 것인 바, 그렇다면 위의 농지분배는 농지아닌 대지의 분배로서 당연히 무효라 할 것이고 따라서 그것을 바탕으로 하여 청구취지 기재와 같이 각 피고들 앞으로 매매 또는 화해를 원인으로 하여 경유된 등기도 무효라 하지 않을 수 없다. 그런데 피고 1, 7, 8들은 군이 징발한 부동산에 대하여 징발을 해제하고 이를 피징발자에게 반환함에 있어서는 원상으로 회복하여 반환하여야 하고 또 위 피고들에 관한 부분의 토지(별지 1-4,7,8,11,14,15,16,17,18,20,21기재목록)가 군에 징발될 당시의 현환은 농지였으므로 그것이 군의 주둔으로 대지가 되었다 하더라고 징발해제와 동시에 농지상태로 환원된 것이고 따라서 징발 후 이를 분배한 것이라면 농지의 분재로서 유효하다고 주장하므로 보건대, 위 문제된 토지의 징발해제 당시의 징발법 14조 에 의하면 징발해제시에는 피징발자의 원이 없는 한 원상회복을 하게끔 규정되어 있기는 하나 당원이 받아들인 각 증거에 의하면 징발해제 당시의 문제된 땅의 주위 현환이 대지라 보지 않을 수 없고 또 그 해제 직후부터 피징발자들이 대지로서 이를 사용수익해 왔음은 물론 아무도 농지로서의 환원을 바라고 있지 않았음을 엿볼 수 있으므로 이 점에 관한 위의 주장은 받아들일 수 없다.

Next, Defendant 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, and 11 at the time of distributing farmland to the land of this case are valid even if the present condition of the land at the time of enforcement of the Agricultural Act is not farmland. However, the Supreme Court precedents at the time of actual distribution are determined after the distribution of farmland to the land of this case was passed through ownership transfer registration and changed after the Supreme Court precedents at the time of enforcement of the Agricultural Act, it is unreasonable to apply the above changed precedents in this case to the effect that even if the present condition of the land at the time of distribution was farmland of this case or farmland at the time of enforcement of the Agricultural Act, such distribution is invalid. However, even if the Supreme Court had previously interpreted the law with respect to any case, it can be interpreted as a so-called union, and it is unreasonable that lower court should comply with the opinion set forth in the Supreme Court precedents at 20 years prior to the completion of the sale of farmland of this case (if there is new precedent at that time, it is reasonable that lower court should still follow the most recent new precedents at the time of distribution of farmland of this case.

As to each of the above lands (attached Form 5,6,14,15,16,18,20,21 list), Defendant 8 obtained ownership transfer registration from Nonparty 5 on October 12, 1956, which was first distributed to Nonparty 5, and transferred to Nonparty 17 on January 18, 1957, and again registered ownership transfer registration due to purchase and sale to the same Defendant on July 22, 1958. Since ownership transfer registration for the reasons of repayment on April 27, 1959, which was later completed by Defendant 2, it is unreasonable to view that Defendant 2’s ownership transfer registration for the first time after the lapse of 8 years from the date on which it was first disposed of through Nonparty 5’s claim for reimbursement of the issue of land to Nonparty 5, the first time after the lapse of 8 years from the date on which it was first disposed of by Defendant 1’s settlement and the first time after the lapse of 8 years from the date on which it was recorded by Defendant 1’s agent.

Next, Defendant 11, as a defense of prescription, continued indirect possession by Nonparty 7 on January 26, 1957 after completing the registration of ownership transfer due to the completion of redemption on January 26, 1957, and the defendant purchased from the non-party and succeeded to indirect possession of the non-party at the same time after completing the registration of ownership transfer due to the sale and purchase on August 1, 1959, and had the non-party directly occupy the land at the same time as the cancellation of requisition on June 10, 1960. The defendant alleged that at least the registered person had occupied the land for 10 years as the doctor for 10 years, but there was no dispute over the establishment, but at least 27 evidence No. 1, No. 3-2, No. 21, and No. 222, and the record verification by the court below (record 68Na417, which was kept at the party at the time of the enforcement of the Agricultural Act). The issue of the land at issue at issue at issue was 1965 U.16.

Therefore, the defendant's objection to this point also cannot be accepted.

Then, Defendant 6 filed a claim against the same defendant for cancellation of ownership transfer registration due to the completion of repayment via the same defendant in 1959 against Nonparty 18 against the same defendant in relation to the land of the same defendant (attached Form 25), but the final and conclusive judgment was rendered as lawful. Accordingly, the plaintiff's claim against the same defendant in accordance with the validity of the claim in this case against the same defendant is unreasonable, but even if the judgment became final and conclusive as alleged by the plaintiff, the validity of the claim in this case against the same defendant cannot be deemed to affect the plaintiff who is not a party to the case. Thus,

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking the cancellation of invalid registration in the future of the defendants is well-grounded, and the appeal by the defendants against the original judgment is without merit. Therefore, this decision is dismissed by Article 384 of the Civil Procedure Act and it is so decided as per Disposition in accordance with the same Act, Article 89 and Article 95 as to the burden of appeal costs.

[Attachment List omitted]

Judges Sap-ho (Presiding Judge) the highest number of judges