Scope of facilities attached to farmland in the farmland Reform Act;

Even if a certain land is lower than that surrounding land and a water flows out from the natural surrounding land, and the form of a ditch was practically achieved, if it is an appurtenant facility directly necessary for the management of the farmland specified by a single management entity, and if it does not belong to a single management entity together with the farmland in question, it cannot be deemed that it belongs to a farmland appurtenant facility as provided in Article 2(2) of the Farmland Reform Act.

Article 2 of the Farmland Reform Act

Supreme Court Decision 66Da264 delivered on April 6, 1966 (Supreme Court Decision 14Da1352 delivered on April 6, 196, Supreme Court Decision 17Da177 delivered on September 6, 1966, Supreme Court Decision 2Da1073 delivered on September 6, 196, Supreme Court Decision 66Da1073 delivered on September 6, 196 (Supreme Court Decision 201Da1631 delivered on July 5, 200)

Plaintiff

Korea

Gwangju District Court of the first instance (72 Gohap52)

The appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant will implement the procedure for cancellation registration of transfer of ownership on August 11, 1969 with respect to 419-2 to 66 of Gwangju City Yang-dong, Gwangju District Court on June 21, 1949.

According to the evidence No. 1, which does not dispute the establishment, the real estate stated in the above claim No. 1 was originally owned by Nonparty 1. The plaintiff purchased it on May 3, 1969 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on July 16, 1969, and thereafter, the fact that the registration of ownership transfer was made under the name of the defendant as stated in the above claim No. 1, No. 3-1, No. 2, No. 1, No. 2-1, and No. 2-3, each of the above evidence No. 1, No. 3-2, and No. 2-3, all together with the testimony of Nonparty 2 of the court below and the result of the verification by the court below,

The land category was changed to a ditch on July 16, 1969 and the land category was changed to 66 square meters on August 22, 1970. The land category was changed to 419-2 square meters on August 22, 197, the 419-1th 211th 219 was distributed to Nonparty 3 before the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, but the land category was changed to the 419-2th 2nd 419 and 419-2nd 7th 7th 419-2nd 419, while the land category was changed to the 419-2nd 66th 2nd 419th 2nd 419-1st 21st 419 was distributed to Nonparty 3 at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, and the land category was de facto a ditch but was excluded from a distributed farmland, and there was no other evidence to support the above recognition only on the 3rd 5th 5th 5th .

Even if the land was actually excluded from the object of distribution as a ditch at the time of this case, since the land was divided at the time and the same land flows out from the surrounding farmland, it is a drainage route attached to the farmland management and its appurtenant facilities are annexed to the farmland management, and since the specific farmland is purchased at the same time with the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, it is the property belonging to the collective ownership or co-ownership of the local number distributors due to the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act. Thus, in full view of each evidence in the above statement and the whole purport of the party's argument, the defendant performer argued that the land is a facility directly necessary for the farmland management.

This part of the land is nothing more than that of the surrounding land, and it is nothing more than that dealing with the shape of ditches due to the inflow of fruit water from the surrounding land due to the lower level than that of the surrounding land, and it cannot be recognized that all of the annexed facilities and mong farmland belonging to the ownership of the single management body, which are necessary for the management of the specific farmland existing in the farmland developed by any single management body.

Therefore, the above assertion by the defendant litigant is groundless.

In this case, the registration of transfer of ownership in the future of the defendant, which is based on the premise that the land in this case was purchased as farmland or its accessory facilities by the State under the Farmland Reform Act, shall not be exempted from the cancellation because it is a registration lacking the cause, so the plaintiff's claim to the same purport shall be accepted as reasonable, and the court below shall dismiss the defendant's appeal as just and without merit, and the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the losing party and so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Park Young-young (Presiding Judge)