1. Validity of permission to change the purpose of use after the distribution of farmland is made;

2. Execution of the Urban Planning Act and effect of disposition of farmland distribution;

3. Whether temporary escape from the Korean War is deemed to be an immigration farmer prescribed in Article 19 of the Farmland Reform Act;

4. The validity of the transfer of cultivation right prior to the completion of redemption.

1. Even if a disposition of permission to change the purpose of use of the land and a disposition of re-distribution to another person was taken after the allocation of farmland to the land became final and conclusive, it is an administrative disposition that void as a matter of course.

2. The application of the Farmland Reform Act, which is excluded by the enforcement of the Urban Planning Act, may not bring about a complaint on the effect of the distribution disposition, only after the land has not been distributed until the enforcement of the Urban Planning Act, has already been determined as the distributed farmland.

3. Of the June 25 Incident, the fact that there was a time when the farmland distributed as a result of the fact that he left the previous place of residence temporarily and could not actually cultivate the farmland for escape cannot be readily concluded as “self-agriculture” as prescribed in Article 19 of the Farmland Reform Act.

4. If a person transfers his/her right to cultivate before completing the repayment of distributed farmland, and accordingly the farmland has been actually delivered, it shall be null and void as a matter of course.

Articles 6, 19, and 16 of the Farmland Reform Act, Article 87 of the Urban Planning Act

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and 50 others

Seoul Central District Court (69A1662) in the first instance trial (Supreme Court Decision 69Da1662)

1. The defendants' appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendants.

The Defendants listed in the attached Table shall perform the procedure for registration of cancellation of each registration on the relevant real estate stated in the same Table of receipt by the Seoul Northern District Court, Seongbukbuk Registry, and the Defendant Republic of Korea shall implement the procedure for registration of transfer of ownership on June 20, 196 for all of the real estate listed in the attached Table to the Plaintiff.

The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendants.

The defendants shall revoke the original judgment.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff.

(1) Each of the above real estate listed in the separate list No. 1 was owned by the Defendants at the same time, and it is difficult for the Defendants to find out that the above real estate was owned by Nonparty 1, 460, and divided into the above list No. 1, 460, and the Defendant’s new statement No. 2, 60, excluding the above list No. 35 through 41, 43 and 44 from the above land after 1961, and the lower court’s new statement No. 1, 66, 197, excluding the above new statement No. 35 to the Defendant’s new statement No. 41, 41, 43, and 444, as stated in the separate list No. 1, the lower court’s new statement No. 1, 606, which became final and conclusive, for each of the above real estate by Nonparty 2’s new statement No. 1, the Defendant’s new statement No. 5, the ownership transfer registration of each of the above real estate was established.

(2) (A) The Defendants and the Intervenor’s Intervenors (hereinafter simply assistant intervenors) were originally owned by the Intervenor, and the Intervenor’s motion to permit the change of the purpose of use of the land, including this case’s land, was filed with the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry through the head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office on April 8, 1952. On August 19, 1959, the Intervenor’s motion to permit the change of the purpose of use of the land was made on March 26, 1950 under the provisions of Article 6(1)4 of the Farmland Reform Act. Accordingly, the Intervenor’s motion to permit the change of the purpose of use of the land, including this case’s land, was made on April 21, 1952. The Intervenor’s motion to permit the change of the purpose of use of the land, including this case’s land, was made on August 19, 1959, and the head of Seongbuk-gu 2, 308 of the Farmland Reform Act’s motion to permit the change of the land.

However, following the promulgation of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act on March 26, 1950, the supplementary intervenor filed an objection against the change of the purpose of use under the Farmland Reform Act, the application for permission to change the purpose of use, and the publication of land owned by the intervenor at the same time, including the land in this case, in accordance with the above decision, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it except for the evidence No. B No. 17-1, which the plaintiff believed that the supplementary intervenor filed an application for permission to change the purpose of use as it had already been denied, and since April 13, 1950, the decision to cancel the use of the land in this case, even if the decision to distribute farmland to the defendant 2 and 3 had become final and conclusive, the supplementary intervenor's assertion that the application of the Farmland Reform Act was excluded due to the implementation of the Urban Planning Act is limited to the land that was not distributed until the Urban Planning Act enters into force, and the validity of the distribution plan cannot be affected by the distribution network of the land in this case after the expiration of the Urban Planning Act.

(B) Even if the land of this case was determined to be distributed to the non-party 2, the above deceased died without completing the repayment of the above land, and his inheritor went out to the non-party 6 on July 13, 19542, and the plaintiff was living separately from the non-party 2 (the non-party 48, the non-party 2's wife, the his wife, and the non-party 2's family members living together (the non-party 7 and the non-party 8, the plaintiff's wife, the non-party 3) were not entitled to inherit the distributed farmland in light of the purport of Article 15 of the Farmland Reform Act. Since the deceased non-party 2's family members living together (the plaintiff's wife, the non-party 7 and the non-party 8) transferred the above land to the defendant 3 on July 13, 19

However, according to the testimony of Non-Party 1 at the court below's witness Eul evidence No. 23 without dispute on the establishment of the farmland of this case, after the deceased non-party 2 died, the plaintiff left the previous residence temporarily for escape during the June 25 incident and the plaintiff could not actually cultivate the distributed farmland of this case. However, such fact alone cannot be readily concluded as "non-party 1" under Article 19 of the Farmland Reform Act. Meanwhile, according to the contents of the evidence No. 6 above, it is obvious in the calculation that the plaintiff's age at the time of family inheritance was 40 years old, barring any special circumstance, since the plaintiff's age at the time of family inheritance was 40 years old, the non-party 2 had the ability to cultivate the farmland of this case and maintain livelihood, even if the non-party 2 died without completing repayment, it cannot be viewed that the distribution of farmland of this case cannot be viewed as having been returned to the non-party 19 of this case, which is the plaintiff's agent's right to cultivate the farmland of this case.

(C) In addition, even if the Defendants assumed that Defendant 2 was allocated farmland to Nonparty 2 of the family network Nonparty 2, the Defendants asserted that, at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, only the 198 square meters distributed on February 1, 1962 and only the 868 square meters distributed by Defendant 3 were farmland at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act. Of the instant land, the land in Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul and approximately 120 square meters was already located at the time. The remainder of the land was not farmland at the time, but was the land created by the supplementary intervenor only at around 1963, since the land was not farmland at the time, the distribution of farmland to the remainder other than the part of the land distributed by Defendant 2 and 3 was against the land, not farmland, and thus, it is null and void as a matter of course

However, there is no sufficient evidence to recognize that the part of the above land in the defendants' assertion was not farmland at the time of enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act or at the time of distribution except the testimony of non-party 9 of the party non-party 1 who is not trusted by the court below. Thus, the above assertion by the defendants also

(3) Thus, the land of this case is the land that was confirmed to be distributed to the deceased non-party 2 on April 13, 1950, and the plaintiff, the inheritor, completed the repayment on June 20, 1969 and acquired ownership. On the other hand, the supplementary intervenor's act of selling part of the land after the distribution became final and conclusive, and the defendant's act of selling part of the land to the defendant 2 and 3 is all null and void. Since each registration made in the name of the defendants as stated in the attached Table, which was followed by the invalid disposal act, is also null and void, the above defendants are obligated to cancel the registration. The defendant Republic of Korea has the obligation to cancel the registration to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff has the obligation to implement the transfer registration procedure for the ownership transfer on the real estate as stated in the attached list on June 20, 196. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is just, and therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is so decided as per Disposition against the defendants.

Judges Yoon Jae-hee (Presiding Judge)