(a) Farmland to be returned to the original owner under the Act on Special Measures for Arrangement of Farmland Reform Projects, among farmland purchased from the State following the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act;

(b) the meaning of "farmland returned to the Government" under Article 19 (1) of the Farmland Reform Act;

C. The exclusion period of claim for land price compensation

A. Of farmland purchased from the State due to the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, the land not distributed at the time of the enforcement of the Act on Special Measures for the Adjustment of Farmland Reform Projects shall be deemed to be owned by the original owner, which is determined not to be distributed simultaneously with the enforcement of the said Special Measures except for the farmland to be registered or distributed to the farmers confirmed as state-owned under Article 2(1) and (2) of the said Act. The farmland already distributed to the Government pursuant to Article 19(1) of the Farmland Reform Act shall be included in the farmland to be registered as state-owned under Article 2(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the said Special Measures Act within the period of Article 2(3) of the said Act, and the farmland not distributed pursuant to Article 2(2) of the said Act shall be returned to the original owner as the purchase of the State is cancelled.

B. Farmland returned to the government under Article 19(1) of the Farmland Reform Act refers to farmland that has been returned to the government by undergoing the prescribed procedures under Article 52(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act. Therefore, farmland that a distributor has renounced de facto cultivation without undergoing such procedures and left alone does not constitute farmland that has been returned.

C. The right to claim compensation following the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act shall expire if it is not exercised within one year from the date of enforcement of the Special Measures Act pursuant to Article 11 of the Act on Special Measures for the Adjustment of Farmland Reform Projects, and the said period shall be deemed the exclusion period

(a) Article 2 of the Act on Special Measures for Arrangement of Farmland Reform Projects, Article 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 19(1) of the Farmland Reform Act, and Article 52(c) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act;

Supreme Court Decision 76Da1407 delivered on January 11, 197, 71Da1680 delivered on September 28, 197, 74Da1271 delivered on December 10, 1974, and 79Da311 delivered on April 10, 1979

Plaintiff 1 and six others (the deceased Nonparty 1’s attorney Park Jae-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and 26 Defendants, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee

Daegu High Court Decision 79Na1175 delivered on March 13, 1981

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

1. We examine the Defendants’ agent’ grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2.

(1) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below initially distributed the land of this case to Nonparty 2, who was originally owned by the deceased Nonparty 1, who was drafted by the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, and was drafted by the Ministry of National Defense during the 6.25 incident that occurred prior to the completion of reimbursement, and subsequently used it as a site for the Army Hospital, and confirmed that the above Nonparty 2 was in fact abandoned without paying the redemption rice, and that each registration under the name of the Defendants, including Defendant 1, which was completed with respect to the land of this case, was invalid, and confirmed that each registration under the name of the Defendants, including the registration in the name of Defendant 1, which was completed with respect to the land of this case, was invalid. The plaintiffs are in a position to be returned to the State when the ownership of the land of this case is reverted to the State due to the waiver of payment in advance and the state did not lose the right to receive compensation for the land of this case, and thus, they have the right to seek the cancellation of the registration

(2) From among farmland purchased from the State due to the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, the land not distributed at the time of the enforcement of the Act on Special Measures for the Adjustment of Farmland Reform Projects shall be deemed to have been reverted to the original owner, which became final and conclusive not to distribute simultaneously with the enforcement of Article 2(1) and (2) of the same Act, with the exception of farmland to be registered or distributed to the farmers confirmed as state-owned under Article 2(1) and (2) of the same Act (see Supreme Court Decision 74Da1271, Dec. 10, 1974). However, the farmland already distributed to the land in this case, such as the land in this case, may not be reverted to the original owner

However, among farmland already distributed, farmland returned to the Government pursuant to Article 19 (1) of the Farmland Reform Act is included in farmland to be registered as a state-owned property pursuant to Article 2 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Special Measures Act pursuant to Article 1 (2) 1 of the same Act, and even if farmland is to be registered as such state-owned property, other farmland except farmland distributed to the State pursuant to Article 2 (2) of the same Act has expired within the period of Article 2 (3) of the same Act, and at the same time, the purchase order of the State has expired, and it shall be cancelled and shall be reverted to the original owner (see Supreme Court Decision 79Da311 delivered on April 10, 197). However, farmland returned to the above government refers to farmland returned to the Government after undergoing the prescribed procedure under Article 52 of the Enforcement Rule of the Farmland Reform Act (see Supreme Court Decision 76Da1407 delivered on November 11, 197). Thus, it cannot be returned to Nonparty 2 without returning the above farmland to the original owner.

Meanwhile, according to Article 11 of the aforementioned Act, the plaintiffs' claim for land price compensation held by the deceased non-party 1's heir who is the original owner of the land of this case shall be extinguished if it is not exercised within one year from the enforcement date of the same Act, and the above period shall be deemed to be the exclusion period (see Supreme Court Decision 71Da1680 delivered on September 28, 1971). Thus, it shall be deemed that the above period has already expired as of March 13, 1969 when one year has passed since

(3) Nevertheless, the court below held that the plaintiffs are in a position to recover their ownership as the original owner of the land of this case and that the land of this case still holds the right to claim for land compensation is erroneous in the interpretation of the Farmland Reform Act and the Act on Special Measures for the Adjustment of Farmland Reform Projects, which led to a serious violation of laws and regulations against justice and equity. Therefore, this issue is discussed.

2. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case to be tried again is remanded to the Daegu High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Lee Sung-soo (Presiding Justice)