The land category at the time of distributing land under the Farmland Reform Act shall be former, but the validity of distributing farmland to the portion which was actually used as a site or road;

Since the farmland distribution portion for the part which was not used as farmland due to the land or roadation at the time of the distribution of farmland is null and void as a matter of course, even if it was distributed, the ownership of the portion cannot be acquired.

Article 2 of the Farmland Reform Act

Supreme Court Decision 70Da2119 delivered on November 24, 1970 (Article 2(121)81 of the Special Act on the Improvement of Farmland) 74Da1481 Delivered on February 10, 1975 (Article 2(14)84 of the Special Act on the Improvement of Farmland)

Hawon Ho-ho

Kim Jong-woo et al.

Daegu District Court of First Instance (85dan2428)

The original judgment 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.

1.For the plaintiff:

A. Defendant Kim Han-dong, Daegu-dong, 198-3, 2034, and 1,2,3,4, and 1 of the annexed drawings among the three Hobs in 2034, he shall deliver the attached drawings at 26 square meters of the site, and shall pay the money at the rate of 1,558,00 won per annum from the day following the delivery of the copy of the complaint to the day of full payment.

(b) Defendant Jeongcheon-dong Co., Ltd. shall pay the portion of the above drawings indicated 7,8,9,13, 12, 11, 10, 10, and 7 in sequence together with each of the above drawings indicated 7, 8, 9, 13, 12, 11, 10, and 7, and the 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 15, and the 15, 17, 17, 18, 19, and 15, and the 4,5,6, 7, and 4,000 square meters of the above drawings and the 15,000 square meters of the above drawings and the 198-dong 198-3 and 203,000,0000,000 won and 136,000,000 won and 136,000,000 won and 2,00.

C. Defendant Kim Tae-tae, a group of 21,22,23,24, and 21, among the above Leecheon-dong 198 3 and 203 3 Hobbe, he shall remove the parts inside the ship connecting each of the above 198-3 and 203 square meters, and the apap 20,21,22,22,23,24,25,26, and 20 each of the points of 20,20 square meters in the site of the ship connecting each of 20,21,22,23, 24, 25, 26, and 20, and shall pay the money at the rate of 520,000 won per annum from the next day of the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendants.

3. The above paragraph (1) can be provisionally executed.

The same shall apply to the order.

The plaintiff is the plaintiff's ownership of 3 large 2034-3 large 198-3 large 3 large 203 Babbbbe (hereinafter "the land in this case"). Among the land in this case, he occupies the land of this case, the part as stated in 1-2 (a) of claim for compensation of 1-2 (Ga), 1-2 (b), and (c) of defendant Jeong Jong-gu's right to claim compensation of 1-3 large 198-3 large 2034 (hereinafter "the land in this case"), and he occupies the land of this case while he owns the part as stated in 1-2 (Na), 1-2 (b) of claim for compensation of 1-2, 196, and he does not have any dispute between the plaintiff and 1-3, and therefore, he does not have any right to claim compensation between the plaintiff and 1-2 (c) of this case as to whether he is the owner of the land in this case's land in this case.

Since the above land was originally distributed to the non-party 2 pursuant to the Farmland Reform Act, the above part of the land was owned by the non-party 2, (A), (b), and (c) the above part of the building site was already owned by the non-party 1, and the above part was owned by the non-party 2, and the ownership transfer of the land was transferred in order from the above 2, (A), (b), and (c) the non-party 2, the non-party 2, the non-party 9, the non-party 2, the non-party 9, the non-party 2, the non-party 9, the non-party 9, the non-party 2, the non-party 9, the non-party 2, the non-party 9, the non-party 2, the non-party 9, the non-party 2, the non-party 9, the non-party 9, the non-party 2, the non-party 9, the non-party 9, the non-party 2, the non-party 9, the new title 9, the new title 2, the non-party 9.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case with low-income ownership of the above (A), (b), and (c) shall be dismissed without any room to examine the remainder of the claims. However, since the original judgment is unfair with different conclusions, the original judgment is justified, and the defendants' appeal against this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 96 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to the plaintiff's claim, and to the burden of litigation costs.

Judges Zwon (Presiding Judge)