Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Young-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Kang Jae-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

April 13, 2007

Jeonju District Court Decision 2004Gadan29196 Decided November 17, 2006

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

The defendant shall implement the procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership based on the recovery of authentic names with respect to the portion (A) of the attached Form No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 10,000 square meters (hereinafter referred to as the "part of the land in this case") among the part of 1203 square meters prior to the previous 1,203 square meters (number 1 omitted) to the plaintiff.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the whole purport of the pleadings in each of the statements in Gap evidence 1-1, 2, 2, 3, 6, Gap evidence 1 through 3, Gap evidence 7 and 8-1 through 4, Gap evidence 11, 13, 14, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 5-1, 2, and 4.

A. In around 1950, Korea distributed to Nonparty 1, who was the father of the Plaintiff pursuant to the former Farmland Reform Act (amended by Act No. 31 of Jun. 21, 1949, repealed by Act No. 4817, Dec. 22, 1994; hereinafter the same shall apply), 462 square meters (number 2 omitted), 1238 square meters (number 3 omitted), 325 square meters prior to the same Ri (number 3 omitted), and 325 square meters prior to the above 1920 square meters (hereinafter the distribution farmland in this case), the former owner of the farmland in this case, which was actually cultivated by Nonparty 1 from around 1920 to Nonparty 2, and the former owner of the farmland in this case at the time of distribution, entered as Nonparty 2.

B. The Plaintiff completed the repayment of the farmland distributed in around 1958, and around May 4, 1963, the Plaintiff issued a redemption certificate from the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry with respect to the 1238 Emb. (number 2 omitted) 462 Emb. (number 3 omitted) 1238 Emb. (number 3 omitted), but did not receive reimbursement certificate on the grounds that the parcel number is unclear for the distributed farmland in this case.

C. As Nonparty 1 died on March 9, 1967, the Plaintiff, who was his/her head, succeeded to the inheritance of Australia.

D. On October 13, 1964, with respect to the forest land (number 4 omitted) located in the Yju-gun, Yju-gun, the non-party 2 owned by the non-party 2 (number 4 omitted), the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the non-party 4 (OOO), the non-party 4 (OOO) who is the deceased's father on December 26, 1964, and the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the non-party 5 was completed on February 23, 1965.

E. On February 16, 1965, at the time of the Jeonju-dong on February 16, 1965, the area was divided into five parallels of 4 mountain (number 5 omitted) and five parallels of 5 mountain (number 5 omitted). On February 17, 1965, at the time of the Jeonju-dong on February 17, 1965, the area was again subdivided into two (number 6 omitted), (number 7 omitted), and the area of forest (number 6 omitted), (number 7 omitted), the area of forest land (number 7 omitted), and the area of forest land (number 7 omitted), which is entered as the owner, Nonparty 4 (○○).

F. Meanwhile, in the history column, 2 of the 364 square meters old land cadastre (No. 9-2 of the evidence No. 1 omitted) prior to the previous 364 square meters (number 1 omitted), the new land cadastre (No. 9-3, 4 of the evidence No. 1965) stated “san” as “(number 6 omitted). The new land cadastre (No. 9-3, 1965) stated “new registration and land category change on February 17, 1965,” “san (number 6 omitted),” and the owner column as “No. 4 (O. 4) in the remarks column of the law,” and the indication number 100 square meters in the title column of the register “No. 26, 1964, No. 1294, No. 2009, Jun. 26, 1964; 203 square meters in the area of the forest and land lot No. 58, Dong-si, Jeollabuk-do-do-si.”

G. On December 26, 1964, the ownership transfer registration under the name of the deceased non-party 4 (OO) was made on December 26, 1964 with respect to the size of 1203 square meters prior to the 1203 square meters in the Jeonsan-gu, Jeonju-si, Jeonju-si, and on August 27, 2004, the ownership transfer registration under the name of the defendant was made on the ground of the inheritance due to the consultation and division.

2. The party's assertion and judgment

A. Summary of the assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the land portion of this case and the allocated farmland of this case are the same land, and that the plaintiff has already completed the repayment of the allocated farmland of this case, the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration for the restoration of real name with respect to the land portion of this case. On the other hand, the defendant asserts that the land portion of this case and the allocated farmland of this case are different land category and size, and they cannot be deemed the same land, and the plaintiff did not complete the registration within three years from the date of entry into force of the Farmland Act, and thus, the ownership

B. Determination

(1) Comprehensively taking account of the following facts: (a) No. 12-1 and No. 2; (b) Nonparty 6’s testimony at the first instance court; (c) the result of the on-site inspection by the court of the first instance; and the purport of the entire pleadings as a result of the appraisal by the appraiser space of the first instance court, the Plaintiff purchased 39 square meters, excluding the portion of the instant land from the deceased Nonparty 4 (○○) on February 24, 1980 before 364, for the remaining 45,000 won. At the time of the sales contract, the Plaintiff cultivated the portion of the instant land following the deceased Nonparty 1’s cultivation; (d) the deceased Nonparty 4 (○○) also recognized that the instant portion of the instant land was farmland on which the Plaintiff had received reimbursement completion; (e) the size of the portion of the farmland which the Plaintiff cultivated to be repaid was 1,074 square meters; and (e) the forest and field area of the instant farmland was 1,2014 square meters prior to the instant portion.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is liable to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on the land portion of this case to the plaintiff who completed the repayment of the purchase price as the heir of the head of household of the non-party 1.

(2) In addition, the Farmland Act (amended by Act No. 4817 of Dec. 22, 1994 and enforced January 1, 1996) repeals Article 2 of the Addenda to the Farmland Act and the Act on Special Measures for Adjustment of Farmland Projects, and Article 3 of the Addenda to the Act provides that "the repayment and registration, etc. of farmland for distributed farmland whose reimbursement and registration have not been completed at the time of enforcement of this Act shall be completed within three years from the enforcement date of this Act". This provision provides that "The payment of farmland shall be completed within three years from the enforcement date of this Act". Since the farmland payment cannot be subject to the Farmland Reform Act and the Act on Special Measures for Adjustment of Farmland, even after the expiration of three years from the enforcement date of the Farmland Act, it is impossible to acquire ownership under the provisions of the Act after the expiration of three years from the enforcement date of the Farmland Act, so it cannot be viewed that the above payment of farmland has been completed within the period of 208 years from the enforcement date of the Farmland Act, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have been repaid within 207 years from the above.

Furthermore, the defendant alleged that the acquisition by prescription of the registry of the land of this case was completed on December 25, 1974 since the defendant indirectly occupied the part of the land of this case through the plaintiff who is a small farmer, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it, the above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.

[Attachment Form Omission]

Judges Yu-ro (Presiding Judge)