Legal relations in cases where a person who received the distribution of farmland sells the farmland to the prop without completing the repayment, and renounces the distributed farmland in form, and where he/she takes an administrative disposition to return the farmland to the prop after the revocation of the distribution;

A person who has received a farmland distribution may waive his farmland pursuant to Article 19(1) of the Farmland Reform Act and Article 52 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act and return the farmland to the Government, and the government that acquired the farmland may again distribute the farmland to the farmer, but the lender may not sell the farmland which the lender has not completed the repayment. Therefore, the disposition that the owner of the farmland submitted an application for renunciation of the ownership transfer method and returned to the prop by cancelling the allocation disposition shall be deemed to have no authority to take such administrative disposition against the head of the seat of the farmland, and such renunciation shall not take effect in light of the legislative spirit of the Farmland Reform Act, so the disposition of distribution shall continue to exist effectively.

Article 19 of the Farmland Reform Act

Supreme Court Decision 4290Da411 delivered on December 5, 1957 (Supreme Court Decision 4679 delivered on November 5, 1957, Supreme Court Decision 19(11)1678 delivered on Farmland Reform Act)

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendant 3

Seoul and Criminal District Court Branch (72Gahap2,109) of Seoul and Criminal Court in the first instance.

Among the original judgment, the part against Defendant 1 and 2 and the part against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against the principal lawsuit against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) shall be revoked, and each of the claims against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the revocation shall be dismissed.

The defendant-Counterclaim plaintiff 3's remaining appeal is dismissed.

Of the costs of lawsuit, the costs of lawsuit of the first and second instances incurred between the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) and the defendant 1 and 2 shall be borne by all between the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant), and the costs of lawsuit of the first and second instances incurred between the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff) 3 and the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) shall be borne by each of the plaintiff's counterclaim.

The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant; hereinafter "the plaintiff") is the main lawsuit of the plaintiff, and the defendant 1 is the defendant 1,158 square meters for the plaintiff, the defendant 1,611 square meters for the defendant 1,61, and 1128 square meters for the defendant 1,61 square meters for the defendant 1,353 square meters for the defendant 111-1, 169 square meters for the defendant 1,30 square meters for the defendant 127 for the defendant 1,65. 30 square meters for the defendant 1,353 square meters for the defendant 1,111 for the defendant 1, 169 square meters for the defendant 1,30 square meters for the defendant 1,305 square meters for the defendant 1,300 square meters for the defendant 1,69, 1127-1,300 square meters for the defendant 1,614 square meters for the defendant 1,604 square meters for the defendant 1,63604 square meters for the defendant 16.

If the above defendant et al. is unable to pay a white paper, he shall pay the amount calculated by converting the amount of KRW 100 per liter into the amount of KRW 100 per liter. Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant et al., and the defendant 3 seeks a declaration of provisional execution. The plaintiff is a counterclaim against the defendant in Gyeonggi-do with regard to the amount of KRW 1,169, 1112, 1,305, as for the amount of USD 1,111-1, 1112, 1,305, the plaintiff shall implement the procedure for transfer of ownership on the ground of sale on January 26, 1970. The litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Defendant, etc. shall revoke the part against Defendant, etc. in the original judgment.

The plaintiff's claim as to the principal lawsuit is dismissed. The costs of lawsuit are all assessed against the plaintiff, and the judgment, such as the claim as to the counterclaim, is also claimed.

1. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant 1 is examined.

The plaintiff was originally owned by the plaintiff at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act. At the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, the 11119 No. 1,158 No. 1,611, and the 1127 No. 1,127 of the same Ri were non-self-owned farmland at the time of the 1119 No. 1,158, the 1128 No. 1,611 as the 1,614 as the 1,127-1 as the 1,127 No. 614 as the 1,127-1 as the 1,611 as the 1,614 as the 1,127-1 as the 1,127-1 as the 1,614 as to each of the above land was distributed to the non-party 2, and there is no dispute between the parties.

Since each of the above lands was an unregistered farmland at the time of distribution of farmland and it is impossible for the plaintiff to do so, the non-party distributed it to the State, and returned it to the plaintiff who was the plaintiff. Thus, even if the plaintiff was not returned to the plaintiff at that time, it was returned to the plaintiff pursuant to the Act on Special Measures for the Adjustment of Farmland Improvement Projects since the non-party renounced the distribution of farmland and did not yet distribute it to other farmers. Since the defendant without any title, he asserted that the above land was cancelled by the non-party No. 13, No. 14, 15, and No. 4, and the non-party No. 7 had no dispute over the establishment, and the non-party No. 7 and No. 9 had no real estate sold to the non-party No. 7 and the non-party No. 4 acquired the above farmland from the non-party No. 3's testimony to the non-party No. 7 and the non-party No. 9 had no real estate sold to the non-party No. 7 and the non-party No. 4 acquired the farmland at the above sale of farmland.

I think, the person who received farmland distribution may waive the farmland pursuant to Article 19 (1) of the Farmland Reform Act and Article 52 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act and return the farmland to the Government, and the government that acquired it may re-distribution the farmland to farmers, but the person who acquired it may not sell the farmland to the prop for which the receiver has not completed the repayment. Thus, the non-party 1 and two persons, such as the previous recognition, shall sell it to the Dong Visits, a foundation established by the plaintiff, to the plaintiff, at 75 won per square day, and submit an application for renunciation of transfer of ownership, and the disposition returned to the prop after the revocation of the distribution disposition by the head of the seat of the farmland, shall be deemed to have no authority to take such administrative disposition to the head of the seat of the farmland, and such waiver shall not have the effect of legitimate waiver in light of the legislative spirit of the Farmland Reform Act. Therefore, the distribution disposition shall continue to exist.

Therefore, the argument that the above non-party has ownership on the premise that the disposition of the non-party who renounced the distributed farmland and returned the farmland to the plaintiff is valid. Since the farmland stipulated in Article 2 of the Act on Special Measures for the Adjustment of Farmland Reform Projects provides for the farmland which has not been distributed at the time of enforcement of the Act, the claim that the plaintiff lost ownership and the non-party 1 and 2, regardless of the legitimacy of the defendant's acquisition of ownership as to the farmland already distributed to the non-party 1 and 2, is also groundless.

2. Next, the plaintiff's main claim against the defendant 3 and the defendant's counterclaim are examined.

The plaintiff was originally owned by the plaintiff at 1,169 1,112 Do-ri 1112 Do-ri 1112 Do-ri and the fact that the defendant 3 occupies it is not a dispute between the parties.

According to the contents of No. 11-2 (Certified Copy of Register) No. 11-7, 1974, the plaintiff can be acknowledged as having completed the registration of ownership transfer based on sale and purchase on May 6, 1950, and there is no evidence contrary thereto. The transferor of ownership without special circumstance has no legal authority to seek delivery against the possessor (and the claim for return of unjust enrichment during the period in which the plaintiff had ownership). Further, the defendant 3 purchased materials from the plaintiff's agent on January 26, 1970 for the transfer of ownership from 35,00,00 won, and the plaintiff purchased materials from the non-party 1-6, which are the non-party 3,000 won for the purchase and sale of the above land. According to the court below's findings that there is no conflict between the plaintiff's act of disposal and the non-party 1-6, 35,000 won for the non-party 1-6, 500 won for the non-party 2's testimony.

Although the defendant's act of disposal of the non-party 6's property is null and void as an act of acting as an agent in excess of his authority, in light of the social status of the defendant, it shall be deemed that there exists a justifiable reason to believe that the defendant had the authority to do so. Therefore, in light of the legal principles of acting as an agent, if the non-party 6's act of disposal of the real estate is asserted valid, but if the non-party 6

Therefore, the plaintiff's main lawsuit and the defendant's counterclaim are all groundless.

3. The plaintiff's request against the defendant 2 is examined.

The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff is holding the plaintiff's illegal possession of 484, 167, 167, 167, 167, 16, 167, 16, 16, 16, 48, 16, 41, 41, 12, 12, 16, 16, 16, 16, 20, 300, 16, 200. The plaintiff's main claim for the plaintiff's transfer of ownership based on ownership is without merit, since the plaintiff's land in this case was originally owned by the plaintiff as the maintenance of the land in this case, but the defendant completed the repayment with the farmland distribution and changed the land category to the answer.

4. In the same way, the plaintiff's principal claim against the defendant, etc. and the plaintiff's counterclaim against the defendant 3 are all dismissed without merit. The plaintiff's principal claim against the defendant, etc. for the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration against the defendant 1 and the delivery of the land, and the delivery of the land by the defendant 2 and 3 among the plaintiff's principal claim against the defendant, etc. for other purposes, the original judgment which cited the part of the claim for delivery of land against the defendant 2 and 3 is unfair. Since the appeal against the above defendants is reasonable, the part is revoked, and the plaintiff's counterclaim is dismissed, and the plaintiff's counterclaim against the defendant 3 is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the application of Articles 96, 9

Judges Kim Hong (Presiding Judge)