Article 10 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act, which is a non-self-owned farmland owned by the king.

Since non-self-owned farmland is naturally purchased from the State simultaneously with the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, there is no need to go through the procedure under Article 10 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act in the distribution of farmland.

Article 10 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act

Supreme Court Decision 74Da1810 Decided January 13, 1976, 75Da2206 Decided July 26, 1974

Plaintiff’s Attorney Seo-soo et al.

The legal representative of the Republic of Korea shall be the Minister of Justice of the Republic of Korea's sewage operation, flexible operation, and Cho Dong-hee

Seoul High Court Decision 80Na1166 delivered on July 6, 1980

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Point 1.

The res judicata effect of the judgment ordering the execution of the procedure for the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer is limited to the right to claim for the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration and does not extend to the existence or absence of ownership (see each of the above Decisions 71Da632, May 24, 1971; 71Da1727, Sept. 28, 1971). Under the same view, the judgment of the court below is just in rejecting the defendant's main defense that the defendant's lawsuit of confirmation of ownership of this case goes against the res judicata effect of the final and conclusive judgment in the case of the claim for the execution of the procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration as to the registration of the plaintiff's title transfer registration, and there

Point 2.

The king's property is incorporated into the state property only under the old king's Property Disposal Act, which enforced April 8, 1950, and until then the time is the king's property, and since the non-self-owned farmland is naturally purchased from the State at the same time with the implementation of the Farmland Reform Act, it is not necessary to go through the procedures provided for in Article 10 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (Law No. 73Da158,1559, Jul. 26, 1974; Supreme Court Decision 74Da1810, Jan. 13, 1976; Supreme Court Decision 75Da2206, May 11, 1976). Accordingly, the court below's decision that the farmland distribution disposition of this case is valid since the party members did not feel the need to change it, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles.

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 Kim Jung-young (Presiding Justice)