The effect of distribution disposition on the farmland permitted by the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry to change the purpose of use;

Since the farmland permitted to change the purpose of use by the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry is excluded from the land subject to purchase by the Government, the allocation disposition of the farmland is inevitable and therefore the ownership transfer registration is invalid.

Article 6 (1) 4 of the Farmland Reform Act

(1) The term "limited partnership company" and the term

Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 65Na2604 delivered on April 19, 1967

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Defendant 1’s Plaintiff’s ground of appeal No. 1

According to evidence, the original judgment was originally included in 2232, the land of this case was originally included in the Seoul Dongdaemun-gu ( Address omitted), and the 297th 8th bbebbeb, among the land of this case, was the site at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, and the remainder was owned by the plaintiff who is not the plaintiff as farmland but the plaintiff as farmland, but the defendant, although he was permitted to change the purpose of use of the entire land from the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry on November 10, 1952, and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the defendant on the ground of the completion of the repayment of July 3, 1957. The Farmland Reform Act cannot be applied to the portion of the land of this case, which is excluded from the government purchase due to the change of purpose of use by the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry. Thus, even if the defendant was distributed the land of this case by the Government, the distribution is null and void. Therefore, it is without merit in the conclusion that the registration of ownership transfer by the defendant's title of this case is invalid.

The second ground of appeal No. 2

If each evidence cited by the original judgment is comprehensively examined in accordance with the record, the facts recognized by the original judgment should be recognized, and there is no ground to find that there was a lack of logical rules or empirical rules in the preparation of evidence and the fact-finding in the original judgment, and therefore, there is no ground to discuss.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed without merit. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by all participating judges.

Supreme Court Judge Madung (Presiding Judge) Kim Gung-bun and Madlebro