Whether distribution of farmland is effective at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act (negative) with respect to farmland that has not gone through the above discussions prescribed in Article 6 (1) 7 of the same Act or the procedure for recognition of farmland prescribed in Article 12 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act

In order to protect a grave at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, farmland not more than two parts per grave shall be naturally excluded from the purchase or distribution of a government under Article 6 (1) 7 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, even if it does not go through the procedure for recognition of the above farmland under Article 12 of the same Act, and even if there are procedures for distribution of such farmland, it shall be null and void.

Article 6 (1) 7 of the Farmland Reform Act, Article 12 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act

Supreme Court Decision 66Da2681 delivered on February 21, 1967, Supreme Court Decision 63Da943 delivered on June 16, 1964 (No. 12 ① civil 179) 69Da1782 delivered on February 10, 1970

Dr. Habre Cr. Cr. T. S. T. H. T. T.

Defendant, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Msan District Court Decision 89Na3490 delivered on August 10, 1990

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Mapo District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below, based on a comprehensive review of the trial evidence, found five parcels of land outside the land of this case, including Dosan-ri 13 and 34, if the remaining land outside the land of this case is the land of this case, which were the land of this case and the land of this case, was entrusted to the trust of the deceased Lee Jae-gun at the time when the Land Investigation Decree was enforced, and the Farmland Reform Act was enforced, which was not reported as the above land, and the land of this case and the land of this case was entrusted to the deceased Lee Jong-do who cultivated all of the land of this case and was distributed the land of this case in his name, and completed the redemption, and completed the registration of transfer from the clan clan's clan's clan's clan's clan's clan's clan's name as stated in the judgment, and the Defendants' co-inheritors died, and then acknowledged that the Defendants expressed his intention to terminate the title trust of this case to the Defendants, and sought the execution of the ownership transfer registration procedure for each of this case.

2. We examine the following and examine the farmland of two or less rooms per one grave for the purpose of protecting a grave at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, which is naturally excluded from the government purchase or distribution pursuant to Article 6 (1) 7 of the Enforcement Rule of the said Act, even if it does not go through the above-mentioned procedure for the above-mentioned Act without going through the above-mentioned procedure for the above-mentioned procedure under Article 12 (1) 7 of the said Act, and even if there is a distribution procedure for the above-mentioned land, it shall be null and void as a matter of course (see Supreme Court Decision 63Da943, Jun. 16, 1964; Supreme Court Decision 66Da2681, Feb. 21, 196; Supreme Court Decision 69Da1782, Feb. 10, 1970).

According to the above established facts of the court below, the court below merely confirmed only the fact that the land of this case is the overland of Plaintiff Sejong, and accepted the plaintiff's claim for ownership transfer registration due to the cancellation of title trust on the premise that the ownership transfer registration of the land of this case is valid on the premise that the purchase by the government under the above Act and the distribution of the trustee's name due to title trust is valid, without examining and judging at all all whether the land of this case is a few cases, and whether the above three-way, which is the cultivator, has paid the small

However, even if the land in this case is the existing land, if it is revealed through the deliberation of the court below that there is farmland exceeding two parts per one grave, among the land in this case, or that it was cultivated to another person for the purpose of collecting fees for small-scale works not for the protection of graves, this part of the land is purchased at the same time as the farmland reform law was enforced, and thus, the title trust relationship with the plaintiff's principal is terminated, and even if the cultivator was the previous trustee, it is not possible for the plaintiff, not the farmer, to receive farmland distribution in the name of the cultivator. On the contrary, if the entire land in this case is the above land that meets the requirements under Article 6 (1) 7 of the above Act, the land in this case is not the land subject to purchase and distribution of farmland, and therefore, the farmland distribution in the court below is null and void, and the plaintiff still holds ownership.

Ultimately, the court below did not properly examine whether the land of this case was a substitute land under the above law, and judged the legal relationship with the title trustee on the premise that the entire land of this case was purchased and distributed under the above law. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles of the above discussion under the Farmland Reform Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and thus, it is reasonable to point out this issue.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)