beta
Text
The judgment below
Of the judgment of the court below, the part concerning the land indicated in the attached list 25 shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be reversed.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to the part of the instant 25 land indicated in the attached list of the lower judgment, the lower court acknowledged, based on its adopted evidence, the fact that the reimbursement was completed by BJ at 250 of 453 U. S. P.O. 453, but the above OM No. 453 was divided on January 30, 1960 and re-converted into the area and became the land of this case 24,25, and it cannot be specified on the ground that there was no proof by the Defendant as to whether the part repaid by BJ constitutes one of the land of this case 24,25, the Plaintiff’s claim for cancellation of the registration of preservation of ownership under the Defendant’s name as to the instant land of this case was also accepted.
However, this decision of the court below is not acceptable for the following reasons.
The judgment below
According to the reasoning and the record, BJ completed the repayment of 250 square meters out of 453 square meters of the PY-gun of Gyeonggi-gun, and thereafter divided the above O 453 square meters into 193 square meters of AL and 260 square meters of AM on January 30, 1960, and each area was converted into 638 square meters of AL on February 10, 1978 (the land in this case) and 859 square meters of AM (the land in this case 25 square meters).
However, in light of the fact that the land that was distributed to BJ and the land area of this case 25 is less than ten square meters, and there is no other circumstance that can be divided into 453 square meters in addition to farmland distribution under the former Farmland Reform Act (repealed by Act No. 4817, Dec. 22, 1994; Act No. 2 subparag. 1, Article 2 of the Addenda to the Farmland Act) and that the accurate survey of the land allocated to BJ is not the final farmland determination stage but the land was divided into the above land, it is reasonable to view that the land that was repaid by BJ was the land of this case 25 square meters in the process of division and unit conversion registration of area.
Nevertheless, on the ground that the court below cannot specify the part of the land 24,25 the repayment of which was completed by BJ, which constitutes one of the land of this case.