The validity of distribution of state farmland without any transfer procedure of the Minister of Finance and Economy

Farmland which was actually used for actual cultivation at the time of promulgation or distribution of the Farmland Reform Act, even though its phenomenon was not used for public use or for public use, it cannot be said that farmland which did not take the procedure of transfer and takeover to the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry under Article 10 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act is farmland subject to distribution under Article 11 of the same Act, and its distribution is null and void.

Article 10 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act, Article 11 of the Farmland Reform Act

Supreme Court Decision 79Da797 delivered on August 19, 1969, 71Da1171 delivered on April 25, 197, 69Da797 delivered on August 19, 1969 (Supreme Court Decision 716,717,718 delivered on July 19, 197; Supreme Court Decision 173Du19 delivered on April 19, 197; Decision 2(47) of the Act on the Settlement and Adverse to the summary of the decision; Decision 10(1

Korea

Defendant 1 and three others

Busan District Court (69Ga1017)

The plaintiff's appeal and each appeal by the defendant are dismissed.

Of the appeal costs, the part between the plaintiff and defendant 1 shall be borne by the plaintiff, and the remaining part between the plaintiff and the defendant, etc. shall be borne by the same defendant, etc.

Defendant 2: (a) on September 6, 1956, the Busan District Court's Dondong-dong 860-1, Busan District Court's Dondong-dong 860-1, the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of the completion of repayment on July 11 of the same year; (b) on April 2, 1958, the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale on the ground of No. 1750 of the same registry office No. 1750 of the same month; (c) on June 28, 1965, the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale on the ground of the same registry office No. 13699 of the same registry office received on August 27, 196; and (d) Defendant 1 received the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale on the ground of the same month No. 12383, Aug. 25, 196; and (e) on the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of the same month No. 860-14.7.7.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The purport of the Plaintiff’s appeal

The part against Defendant 1 in the original judgment shall be revoked.

Defendant 1 followed the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer on August 5, 1967, the receipt of the same registry office No. 11598 of the same year, as of July 27, 1968 of the same year.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the same defendant.

The purport of appeal by the defendant

The original judgment (in the case of Defendant 1 only, the part against which it was lost) shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

As to the Busan Dongdong-dong 860-1, Busan Dongdong-dong 860-1, which was written in the purport of the claim, the fact that the defendant 2 passed through each ownership transfer registration in the name of the defendant, etc., such as the statement, and the fact that the ownership transfer registration in the name of the defendant, etc. was passed through through the same ownership transfer registration in the name of the defendant 1, there is no dispute between the parties, and the fact that the registration was passed through the same ownership transfer registration in the name of the defendant 1, No. 2, No. 3, the above 860-1, No. 860, the land purchased in the Busan National Railroad Department as originally planned land from the Busan National Railroad Department, and the fact that it is a state-owned administrative property by taking charge of the traffic department prior to the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, and there is no contrary evidence to the above recognition.

Therefore, even if the farmland was actually used for the actual cultivation at the time of promulgation or distribution of the Farmland Reform Act, it can be distributed to the farmland only when the farmland was transferred to the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry with the head of the finance division under Article 10(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act, and the farmland which did not follow the above procedure cannot be deemed as farmland subject to distribution under Article 11 of the same Act. Thus, the distribution of the farmland must be deemed null and void. However, although the defendant asserted that the above site had been transferred to the defendant et al., the above argument was insufficient to acknowledge the above argument, and there was no evidence sufficient to accept the above argument, the above argument by the defendant et al. is groundless.

Next, the plaintiff also sought implementation of the procedure for the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration in the name of the above 8 square meters against the defendant 1 on the premise that the defendant 2 received the same 860-14 large 8 large 8 large scale as farmland, on the premise that he received it as farmland. However, there is no proof that the defendant 2 received the land as farmland even through the plaintiff's former certificate, and it is not necessary to determine the validity of the registration. The plaintiff's above assertion is groundless.

Therefore, since the above registration of ownership transfer in the name of Defendant 2 against the above 860-1 to 8-1 and each registration of ownership transfer in the name of the remaining defendant et al., which was based on the above 860 and the above 860-1 to 8, the part seeking cancellation of each of the above registration among the plaintiff's claims is justified, and thus, the part seeking cancellation of the above registration should be accepted, and the part seeking cancellation of the ownership transfer registration in the above 860-14 to 8 is unfair, and therefore, the original judgment is just and without merit, and all appeals filed against the plaintiff 1 and appeals filed by the defendant et al. against the defendant et al., and therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the application of Articles 384, 93 and 89

Judges Choi Hon-ro (Presiding Judge)