1. Validity of distribution of State farmland without taking procedures for transferring the farmland by the Minister of Finance and Economy;

2. Effect of ratification of agreement between the Minister of Finance and Economy and the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry after the fact on state farmland distributed without taking over procedures of the Minister of Finance and Economy;

1. The Minister of Agriculture and Forestry may not distribute farmland owned by the State without taking over the procedure of the Minister of Finance and Economy pursuant to Article 10 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act, so the distribution of farmland is null and void automatically.

2. Even if the Minister of Finance and Economy and the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry have agreed to accept the farmland distributed without the transfer process as a legitimate distribution disposition, it cannot be deemed that the defects of the farmland distribution disposition that has become void as a matter of course are cured or the above transfer procedure has been completed.

Article 10 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act, Article 5 of the Farmland Reform Act

Supreme Court Decision 69Da797 delivered on August 19, 1968 (Supreme Court Decision 69Da418, 419, 420 delivered on July 8, 1968; Supreme Court Decision 69Da797 delivered on August 6, 1968 (Supreme Court Decision 716Da718 delivered on August 7, 1968; Supreme Court Decision 17No3Da19 delivered on August 19, 196; Supreme Court Decision 2(47)100 delivered on July 8, 196, Article 10(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act; Supreme Court Decision 1707Da1707 delivered on August 19, 1968

Korea

Defendant 1 and 10 others

Busan District Court (68Ga3181)

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendants.

As to the plaintiff

1. On October 10, 1958, with respect to the real estate listed in (2) through (5) in the annexed sheet, the procedure for the cancellation of the registration of transfer of ownership on September 11, 1958, as described in No. 4466, which was received by the Busan District Court dong Branch Office,

2. On September 25, 1958, Defendant 2 registered the cancellation of ownership transfer registration of the cause of the completion of repayment as stipulated in No. 436 of the receipt of the above registry office on September 25, 1958 as to the real estate listed in the attached list (6)

3. Defendant 3: (a) on October 15, 1959 with respect to real estate listed in (7) through (9), the procedure for cancelling the registration of transfer of ownership on September 26, 1959, which was the receipt of the above registry office No. 5953, Oct. 15, 1959

4. As to (10) real estate listed in the annexed sheet (18) and (2) real estate listed in the annexed sheet (2) 313 square meters prior to real estate (2) 293 square meters and (19) 237 square meters prior to real estate and (2) 93 square meters of "237 square meters prior to real estate," the registration procedure for cancellation of transfer of ownership as to real estate listed in the annexed sheet (11) through (17) of the registration of completion of transfer of ownership as stated in the annexed sheet of the registration of completion of transfer of ownership as of September 29, 1959, as described in subparagraph (b) 4791 of the same registry office as of September 29, 1959.

5. Defendant 5: (a) on October 13, 1959 with respect to real estate listed in the [Attachment List (20) through (27), the procedure for the cancellation of the registration of transfer of ownership on September 29, 1959, as described in No. 4894 for receipt of the above registry; and

6. The defendant 6: (a) the procedure for the cancellation of the registration of transfer of ownership on April 28, 1961, as set forth in No. 22438 of the receipt of the above registry office on December 29, 1961, as to the real estate listed in (28) and (29) in the attached list; and

7. Defendant 7: (a) on October 12, 1959, the procedure for the cancellation of the registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of the completion of repayment on September 26, 1959, as set forth in No. 484 of the receipt of the above registry on October 12, 1959 with respect to the real estate

8. As to the real estate (44), (46) through (48), and (45) real estate’s answer 340 square meters, Defendant 8 shall register cancellation of the registration of ownership for the cause of completion of repayment as of Sep. 29, 1959, as of October 7, 1959, as stipulated in subparagraph 4752 of the above registration office’s receipt of the above registration office.

9. Defendant 9: (a) on October 8, 1959, the procedure for the cancellation of the registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of the completion of repayment on September 26, 1959, as set forth in No. 4792 of the receipt of the above registry office on October 8, 1959; and (b) on

10. On December 30, 1961, Defendant 10: (a) the procedure for the cancellation of the registration of the transfer of ownership on April 28, 1961, as set forth in No. 22515 of the receipt of the above registry; (b) the procedure for the cancellation of the registration of the transfer of ownership on the ground of completion of repayment

11. As to the real estate listed in (53) and (54) in the separate sheet, Defendant 11 shall carry out the registration procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration on May 30, 1963 as the receipt of the above registry office No. 10525 on August 24, 1963, respectively.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendants.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

(5) As indicated in the separate list No. 1 to No. 5 (No. 1 to No. 45) of the above real estate was purchased by Nonparty 1 under the same title as that of the above real estate, and no. 1 to No. 5 (No. 1 to No. 45) of the No. 7 (No. 1 to No. 47) of the above real estate were disputed, and no. 1 to No. 6-1 to No. 5 (No. 1 to No. 44) of the above real estate was established by Nonparty 1, No. 96 (No. 1 to No. 5) of the above real estate, and no. 1 to No. 1 to No. 222 (No. 1 to No. 45) of the above real estate was established by Nonparty 4; and (No. 2 to No. 51 to No. 97) of the record No. 1 to No. 961 of the court below, No. 1963) of this case

If so, at the time of August 9, 1945, the real estate was owned by the Korean government as the land owned by the Japanese government and was naturally converted into national administrative property through the establishment of the Republic of Korea at the same time with the establishment of the Republic of Korea, and the government-owned land was not transferred to the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry pursuant to Article 10 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act, and the Minister of Finance and Economy determines the fact that it was not necessary for the public use of state farmland or public use and transfers it to the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry, and the distribution of the farmland cannot be distributed to the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry. Therefore, since there is no proof that the defendants received the distribution of the land in this case by taking over the above procedure, the farmland distribution disposition of the above recognition cannot be

The defendant, etc., even if he did not take the procedure for the transfer of farmland under Article 10 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act at the time of the above distribution of farmland, it shall be deemed that the above transfer of farmland had been completed after the lawful distribution of farmland without agreement between the Minister of Finance and Economy and the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry, even if the above transfer of farmland had not been made without the above transfer of farmland. Since the above transfer of farmland had not been made at the time of the above transfer of farmland distribution, it shall be deemed that the above transfer of farmland had not been made after the completion of the above transfer of farmland, the above transfer of farmland is valid. Even if the above transfer of farmland was not made after the completion of the above transfer of farmland, it shall be deemed that the above transfer of farmland had not been made under the conditions that the above transfer of farmland was made under the conditions that the above transfer of farmland was made without the above transfer of farmland, and that the above transfer of farmland was made under the conditions that the above transfer of farmland was made under the conditions that the above transfer of farmland would not be valid after the completion of the above transfer of farmland distribution of 2.

Therefore, the above farmland disposition against Defendant 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 7, 8, 9, 6, 8, and 9 cannot be considered as a distribution procedure of invalidity. Therefore, the above farmland disposition against the Defendant cannot be considered as a distribution procedure of invalidity. Therefore, the above farmland disposition based on the above distribution disposition (in the case of the above distribution disposition against the Nonparty, the Defendants purchased real estate redemption and completed redemption under their names) and the above transfer of ownership registration, which was made in the future of the Defendants on the ground of payment due to the above distribution disposition and the above transfer of ownership, which was made in advance on the ground of sale, shall be considered as a registration invalidation. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for cancellation of the above registration against the Defendant et al. against the Defendant, etc., shall be accepted on the ground that the original judgment is just and without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the application of Articles 384, 95, 89

[Attachment List]

Judges Choi Hon-ro (Presiding Judge) Kim Jong-ju