If a person who allocates farmland seeks to implement the transfer registration procedure for the portion of land more than the amount of redemption, the matters to be deliberated by the court below.

The Defendant asserted that it was wrong to seek implementation of the procedure for ownership transfer registration for the portion of the land of this case, which is more than 31 square meters, when the Plaintiff completed the repayment of dry field 350 square meters, and it seems that there was a defense of simultaneous implementation. Therefore, the lower court should determine whether the amount of redemption determined by the Defendant in distributing the portion of the land of this case to the Plaintiff had an impact on the above 31 square meters.

Articles 7 and 13 of the Farmland Reform Act, Article 536 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Korea

Daegu District Court Decision 72Na360 delivered on June 12, 1973

The original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu District Court.

(1) We examine the first ground for appeal by the defendant performer.

The court below determined that the attached Form 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 15 of the attachment of the court of first instance among the dry field of No. 405, Daegu-gu, a land within which the plaintiff cultivated as dry field for about 40 years, and that the land was distributed from the defendant as well as the two parcels of land cultivated by the plaintiff at the time of implementation of the Farmland Reform Act. The public official concerned prepared and delivered the certificate of redemption (No. 3) that the above dry field was erroneously stated in 350 square meters for dry field of No. 405, which was the land within the original dry field of No. 405, and that the plaintiff occupied the dry field of No. 381, the above dry field of No. 381, which was the land within the original dry field of No. 15, without knowledge of the above facts, and that the plaintiff was not entitled to the plaintiff's reimbursement of the dry field of No. 2, 35,0000.

(2) We examine the second issue of the same appeal.

As the judgment of the court below acknowledged, the plaintiff did not object to the correction of the lot number and the point indicated in the repayment certificate (if the land indication is wrong in the repayment certificate) more than 381 of the farmland portion in this case, and the plaintiff did not object to the correction. Thus, there is no room for applying Article 12 of the Act on Special Measures for the Adjustment of Farmland Reform Projects, which is limited to the case where the interested party who has an objection is to file a lawsuit due to the implementation of the Agricultural Exploitation Act and the same law, so there is no room for applying the same article.

However, according to Article 13 subparagraph 1 of the Farmland Reform Act with respect to the amount of redemption for the portion of the land in dispute, according to the method of appraisal under Article 7 subparagraph 1 of the same Act, the defendant has been decided at the court below on May 7, 1973, and the plaintiff only completed redemption for 350 square meters of the above ( Address 2 omitted), and it is argued that it is erroneous for the plaintiff to seek implementation of the procedure for registration of transfer of ownership for the portion of the land in dispute which is more than 31 square meters. Thus, the court below should have rejected the above 31 square meters of the amount of redemption when distributing the portion of the land in dispute to the plaintiff. Thus, the court below should have determined that there was a difference between the above 31 square meters of the amount of redemption and the above 31 square meters of the amount of redemption when the defendant distributed the above 31 square meters of the amount of redemption when it did not meet the above 31 square meters of the amount of redemption.

(3) Therefore, the original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu District Court which is the original judgment. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Seo-gu et al. (Presiding Justice)