[1] Whether the right to distribute farmland can be subject to extinctive prescription (negative)

[2] A person who succeeds to the right to distribute farmland income

[1] The disposition of distributing farmland cannot be deemed to be an administrative disposition, unless its validity is denied by legitimate procedures, and it is irrelevant to whether the distributor has occupied the farmland, and thus, even if the distributor delayed repayment for a long time, the disposition of distributing farmland is valid, but the right of the distributor remains in a state where repayment is not completed. Thus, it cannot be said that the statute of limitations expires.

[2] Where a person who received a farmland distribution dies, only a person who maintains his/her livelihood with the farmer or his/her farmland cultivation succeeds to the right of distribution.

[1] Article 162 of the Civil Code, Article 11 of the former Farmland Reform Act (repealed by Act No. 4817 of Dec. 22, 1994) / [2] Articles 11 and 15 of the former Farmland Reform Act (repealed by Act No. 4817 of Dec. 22, 1994); Article 105 of the Civil Code

[1] Supreme Court Decision 92Da7603 delivered on December 21, 1993 (Gong1994Sang, 479) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 68Da573 delivered on June 18, 1968 (No. 16-2, 144), Supreme Court Decision 73Da509 delivered on February 12, 1974 (Gong1974, 7757), Supreme Court Decision 91Da17368 delivered on August 13, 191 (Gong191, 2355)

Plaintiff 1 and one other (Attorneys Cho Han-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea

Jeonju District Court Decision 95Na6109 delivered on April 25, 1997

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal

Farmland distribution disposition is an administrative disposition, unless its validity is denied by legitimate procedures, the rights of a distributor, separate from the disposition, shall not be deemed to be extinguished. This is irrelevant to whether a distributor has occupied the farmland in reality, and even if a distributor delays long-term repayment, the original disposition of distribution is valid, but the rights of the distributor remain in the state where repayment is not completed, and thus the statute of limitations shall not be deemed to be extinguished (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da7603, Dec. 21, 1993).

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the extinctive prescription of the right to distribute.

2. On the second ground for appeal

In a case where a person who received farmland distribution dies, only a farmer or a property heir who maintains his/her livelihood with the cultivation of the farmland succeeds to the right to such distribution (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 68Da573, Jun. 18, 1968; 73Da509, Feb. 12, 1974; 91Da17368, Aug. 13, 1991).

Upon examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the court below is just in finding that the non-party's bereaved family members who maintained their livelihood by farming of farming or farmland at the time of death were the plaintiffs and succeeded to the right to share farmland of the non-party. There is no violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of the legal principle as to this point.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant who is the appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)