Ownership of farmland created before distribution

Although the land which was a site is the land which was purchased from the government for the distribution of farmland at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, the effect of the government purchase is lost at the same time as the land site is converted (the fulfillment of the cancellation condition). Therefore, the ownership of the previous land owner is not lost.

Articles 2 and 5 of the Farmland Reform Act

67Da1006 decided Aug. 29, 1967 (Supreme Court Decision 15BDu259 Decided May 16, 1967)

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and three others

Daegu District Court of First Instance (66Ga3178)

All appeals by the defendant, etc. are dismissed.

All costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendants.

Plaintiff

(1) Defendant 1 shall pay 500 won per month from January 1, 1964 to the removal of the above building and delivery of the site in accordance with the rate of 34,38,39,35,34 of the annexed drawings, which connects each point of 34,39,35, and 34 of the annexed drawings, which are measured in accordance with Article 31 of the Land Survey Regulation, among the 74,100 1 but not more than 74,100,000,000 won per month.

(2) Defendant 2: (a) in a ship which connects each point of 1,25,6,3,4, and 1 of the annexed drawings as measured by Article 31 of the Land Survey Regulations among the 73th 5th Hunbbes in Daegu-si, Daegu-si, Daegu-si, the 6th 7th Mabbes (number 2 omitted); (b) removed Mabroping coa in a building located on the ground of 10th 7th Hunbbes in part 10th 7th Mabbes, and delivers the building site and pay the money in proportion to 1,700 won per month from January 1, 1964 to the removal of the building and the delivery

(3) 피고 3은 위 대지중 별지도면 표시 1,11,7,8,9,10,12,13,14,15,16,5,2,1의 각 점을 연결한 선내 ㈂,㈃부분 8평 9홉의 지상에 소재한 목조루핑즙 평가건 주택 건평 4평 4홉의 건물을 철거하여 동 대지를 인도하고 1964.1.1부터 위 건물철거 및 대지인도에 이르기까지 매월 1,200원의 비율에 의한 돈을 지급하고

(4) 피고 4는 위 대지중 위 도면표시 6,16,19,21,32,28,27,26,24,25,6의 각 점을 연결한 선내 ㈈,㈉부분 13평 4홉 지상에 소재하는 목조초즙 평가건 주택 건평 3평 8홉의 건물을 철거하여 동 대지를 인도하고 1964.1.1.부터 위 건물철거 및 대지인도에 이르기까지 매월 2,100원의 비율에 대한 돈을 지급하라.

The costs of lawsuit were assessed against the defendant, etc., and the declaration of provisional execution was sought.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff through the first and second trials.

In full view of the statements in Gap evidence 1-1, 2, and the results of the examination by the court below and the appraisal by non-party 1, the defendant et al., who acquired ownership on September 30, 1960, can recognize the facts that the plaintiff owned each building of the purport of the claim stated in the separate sheet and occupied the above site, and no other evidence exists to reverse this.

Defendant 2, as Nonparty 2’s ownership, is the answer to the land category on the register, and actual dry field is the land category on the register, and Nonparty 3 and 4’s children were farmland cultivated before the river bank and purchased at the same time from the State, Nonparty 2, the prop, notwithstanding the fact that the farmland was changed to the land category on September 15, 1960 and sold it to the Plaintiff on September 15, 1960 and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the Plaintiff’s name, but the sale contract between the Plaintiff and Nonparty 2, as it is apparent that the land is farmland, and the ownership cannot be acquired. As such, in full view of the evidence set forth above, the above land cannot be recognized as having been distributed as farmland in the country until now, and since the land purchased at the time of the implementation of the Farmland Reform Act is farmland, it cannot be said that the land was purchased at the same time as before the date of its purchase and sale, and as so argued by the Defendants, it cannot be said that the land was not sold to the State, even if it was not sold.

Therefore, as long as the defendant et al. does not have legitimate authority to occupy the above site, the above point is eventually attributable to the illegal point. Thus, the plaintiff is obligated to remove the above building and deliver the site. As to the damages of the clinical party, the plaintiff is justified by applying Article 9 of the Civil Procedure Act to the defendant et al. for the compensation of the remaining damages within the scope of the plaintiff's 80 won per month since the 1964 and the 40 won per month after the 1966th day after the 1965, which are recognized by the witness witness's testimony. Thus, the defendant et al. suffered damages at the rate of 70 won per month from January 1, 1964 to December 31, 1965, since the defendant et al. had no legitimate authority to occupy the above site, the defendant et al. shall be bound to remove the above building building and to deliver the building site. The plaintiff's claim for the compensation for damages within the scope of the above 80 won per month from January 1, 19666 to the above site.

Judges Kim Young-ro (Presiding Judge) and post-sup to the police station