[1] Whether the purchase and acquisition of farmland by a person who does not own own money pursuant to Article 5 of the former Farmland Reform Act is a condition subsequent to the cancellation that farmland will not be distributed (affirmative)

[2] Whether farmland, among farmland not distributed at the time of the enforcement of the Act on Special Measures for Adjustment of Farmland Reform Projects, which shall be returned to the ownership of the original owner at the same time as the former Act enters into force, and farmland, other than farmland distributed to the original owner pursuant to Article 2 (1) of the same Act within the period of Article 2 (3) of the same Act among farmland registered as a state-owned under paragraph (1) of the same Article, shall be returned to the original owner at the same time as the latter owner

[3] In a case where a public official who manages farmland, the registration of ownership preservation of which was made in the name of the State, fails to properly confirm the fact that he/she should re-register the ownership transfer to the original owner as farmland purchased by the State under the former Farmland Reform Act, and disposes of it to a third party, thereby causing damage to the original owner, whether it constitutes an unlawful act by the public official’s intentional or negligent act as stipulated in Article 2(1)

[4] Whether a piece of land annexed to a piece of farmland is purchased with the Government with a piece of farmland under the enforcement of the former Farmland Reform Act and is distributed together with a piece of farmland (affirmative)

[1] Article 5 of the former Farmland Reform Act (repealed by Act No. 4817 of Dec. 22, 1994) provides that the government purchases farmland from a person who does not self-contributed. This is intended to distribute farmland to farmers self-contributed by the government. Therefore, in a case where a decision not to distribute farmland has become final and conclusive, it can be deemed that the farmland was planned to be returned to the original owner from the time of purchase. Therefore, acquiring farmland from a person who does not self-contributed by the government should be deemed as a condition subsequent to the rescission that the farmland should not be distributed later.

[2] Farmland not distributed at the time of enforcement of the former Act on Special Measures for Adjustment of Farmland Reform Projects (amended by Act No. 1993, Mar. 13, 1968; repealed by Act No. 4817, Dec. 22, 1994; hereinafter “Special Measures Act”) shall be reverted to ownership of the original owner, which is determined not to be distributed simultaneously with the implementation of the Special Measures except for farmland to be distributed to farmers registered or confirmed as State-owned under Article 2(1) of the Act on Special Measures. In addition, even if farmland is registered as State-owned pursuant to Article 2(1) of the Act on Special Measures, other farmland except farmland distributed pursuant to Article 2(2) of the Act on Special Measures shall be reverted to ownership of the original owner after the expiration of the first year period stipulated in Article 2(3) of the Act on Special Measures at the same time as the purchase of the State at the same time, and shall be reverted to ownership of the original owner.

[3] Where the State completed registration of preservation of ownership of farmland purchased under the former Farmland Reform Act (repealed by Act No. 4817 of Dec. 22, 1994, Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Addenda to the Farmland Act), but the farmland is not distributed to the original owner and is reverted to the original owner, a registration of ownership transfer concerning farmland shall be completed to the original owner. If a public official managing the farmland causes damage to the original owner by disposing of it to a third party without properly verifying that the state should re-register the ownership transfer to the original owner as farmland purchased under the former Farmland Reform Act, barring any special circumstance, it constitutes an intentional or negligent act committed by a public official under Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act.

[4] Article 2 of the former Farmland Reform Act (repealed by Act No. 4817, Dec. 22, 1994; hereinafter the same applies) stipulates that a branch of a branch of a farmland, a concentration (concentration) and a waterway, etc. directly required for the management of farmland, shall be attached to the relevant mon farmland. The reason why the Government had the Government purchase such attached facilities together with the relevant mon farmland is to allow the Government to use the attached facilities under the same conditions as the previous farmland without any impediment when the farmland is cultivated by a person who was distributed with the mon farmland under the former Farmland Reform Act. Therefore, the land annexed to the mon farmland shall be deemed purchased with the mon farmland and distributed together with the mon farmland in accordance with the enforcement of the former Farmland Reform Act.

[1] Articles 5 and 11 of the former Farmland Reform Act (repealed by Act No. 4817 of Dec. 22, 1994) / [2] Article 2 of the former Act on Special Measures for Adjustment of Farmland Reform (repealed by Act No. 4817 of Dec. 22, 1994) / [3] Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act, Article 5 and 11 of the former Farmland Reform Act (repealed by Act No. 2 subparagraph 1 of the Addenda of the Farmland Act, Act No. 4817 of Dec. 22, 1994), Article 2 of the former Farmland Reform Act (repealed by Act No. 4812 of Dec. 22, 1994) / [4] Article 2 of the former Farmland Reform Act (repealed by Act No. 4817 of Dec. 22, 1994; Act No. 4812, Dec. 17, 1994)

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 2001Da48187 Decided December 27, 2001 (Gong2002Sang, 357) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 81Meu100 Decided July 28, 1981 (Gong1981, 14204) Supreme Court Decision 81Da782 Decided December 8, 1981 (Gong1982, 141) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 2014Da22909 Decided November 10, 201 (Gong2016Ha, 1897) / [4] Supreme Court Decision 80Da7555 Decided July 222, 1980 (Gong1980, 13078) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 2012Da613619 decided December 13, 2015

Plaintiff 1 and three others (Attorney Cho Young-hee, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 2012Na106289 decided July 18, 2013

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 5 of the former Farmland Reform Act (amended by Act No. 4817 of Dec. 22, 1994; hereinafter the same) provides that the government purchases farmland from a person who does not self-contributed. This is intended to distribute farmland to a farmer, etc. self-contributed by the government. Therefore, in a case where a decision not to distribute farmland has become final, it may be deemed that the farmland will have been returned to the original owner from the time of purchase. Therefore, acquiring farmland from a person who does not self-contributed by the government should be deemed as a condition subsequent to the purchase of farmland (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Da48187, Dec. 27, 2001, etc.).

Farmland not distributed at the time of enforcement of Article 2(1) of the former Act on Special Measures for Adjustment of Farmland Reform Projects (amended and enforced by Act No. 1993, Mar. 13, 1968; repealed by Act No. 4817, Dec. 22, 1994; hereinafter “Special Measures Act”) shall be reverted to the original owner who has determined not to distribute farmland to farmers registered or confirmed as State-owned pursuant to Article 2(1) of the Act on Special Measures, with the exception of farmland to be distributed to farmers, and shall be reverted to the original owner. In addition, even if farmland is registered as State-owned pursuant to Article 2(1) of the Act on Special Measures, other farmland except farmland distributed pursuant to Article 2(2) of the Act on Special Measures shall be reverted to the original owner after the expiration of the one-year period stipulated in Article 2(3) of the Act on Special Measures and the cancellation of the purchase of the State at the same time, and shall be reverted to the original owner (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da1818.

Where the State has completed registration of preservation of ownership of farmland purchased pursuant to the former Farmland Reform Act, but the farmland is returned to the original owner due to the failure to distribute it, the registration of ownership transfer concerning farmland shall be completed to the original owner. If a public official managing the said farmland fails to verify the fact that the State should re-register the ownership of farmland purchased pursuant to the former Farmland Reform Act to the original owner and disposes of it to a third party, thereby causing damage to the original owner, such act constitutes an illegal act committed by a public official under Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act, barring any special circumstance.

Meanwhile, Article 2 of the former Farmland Reform Act stipulates that a branch of a branch of a farmland, a concentration (concentration), and a waterway, etc. directly required for farmland management, shall be attached to the relevant piece of farmland. The Government’s purport is to allow a person who was allocated a piece of farmland under the former Farmland Reform Act to purchase such attached facilities in the same manner as the relevant piece of farmland and to allow him/her to use the attached facilities under the same conditions as the previous farmland without any impediment when he/she cultivates farmland. Therefore, the land annexed to a piece of farmland ought to be purchased with the Government along with the mon farmland and distributed together with the mon farmland (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 80Da755, Jul. 22, 1980; 2013Da200629, Jun. 11, 2015).

2. The reasoning of the lower judgment and the record reveal the following facts.

A. The Plaintiffs’ prior to the division, the Nonparty, who was the Defendant’s prior to the division, was under the assessment of KRW 1304 (hereinafter “land prior to the division”), and thereafter divided the instant land from the land prior to the division.

B. As to the instant land, the Defendant completed the registration of initial ownership on May 25, 198, and completed the registration of initial ownership, and the Defendant sold the instant land to Samsung C&E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Tsung E&D”) and Samsung SDR completed the registration of ownership transfer and the registration of ownership transfer under its name on November 7, 1994 (hereinafter “T&E”) on January 21, 2008.

C. On September 20, 201, the Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the Defendant, Samsung C&E, and Samsung C&E seeking the registration of preservation of ownership and the cancellation of ownership transfer. As a result, the claim against the Defendant for cancellation of registration of preservation of ownership was accepted on April 18, 2012, but the claim for cancellation of registration of ownership transfer against Samsung E&E was dismissed on the ground that Samsung E&E acquired ownership of the instant land upon the completion of the prescription period for acquisition of the registry on November 7, 2004, and Samsung E&E acquired ownership of the instant land on the ground that it was transferred ownership. This judgment became final and conclusive on May 11, 2012.

D. The Defendant asserts that registration of the preservation of ownership of the instant land, which is a farmland, has been completed as a farmland, pursuant to Article 2(2), Article 5, Article 2(1) of the former Farmland Reform Act, and Article 2(1) of the Act on Special Measures. However, it is not confirmed that the instant farmland or the instant land was distributed, as alleged by the Defendant, after the enforcement of the Act on Special Measures.

3. Therefore, as alleged by the Defendant, even if the instant land was purchased along with the instant land purchased pursuant to Article 5 of the former Farmland Reform Act as an appurtenant facility to the said farmland, which was not distributed at the time of the enforcement of the Act on Special Measures for Farmland, and the registration of ownership preservation was completed, insofar as it cannot be deemed that the instant land belonging to the said farmland or its appurtenant facilities was distributed after the enforcement of the Act on Special Measures, the instant land was already reverted to the original owner as at the time when the instant land was sold to Samsung Esua and completed the registration of ownership transfer. If a public official belonging to the Defendant had paid ordinary attention to meet the same duties as an average public official in charge of the same duties, then he could have known that the instant land was reverted to the original owner. Nevertheless, if a public official belonging to the Defendant sold the instant land to Samsung Esua and transferred the ownership registration, the negligence and illegality of the said tort is recognized to the public official belonging to the Defendant.

Ultimately, while some of the reasoning of the lower judgment is inappropriate, the lower court’s determination that the public officials belonging to the Defendant recognized negligence and illegality is eventually justifiable. In so doing, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence inconsistent with logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on farmland reform Act, special measures, and the burden of proof, etc., which affected the conclusion

4. The Defendant’s appeal is dismissed in entirety as it is without merit, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Poe-young (Presiding Justice)