Acquisition of ownership due to distribution of farmland to reserved land for replotting;

Upon completion of a replotting plan, the owner of the previous land shall acquire the ownership of the substitute land and lose the right to the previous land, except in extenuating circumstances.

Article 49 of the Urban Planning Act

Supreme Court Decision 63Da14 Decided February 28, 1963

Plaintiff

Korea

Seoul District Court Decision 64Na360 delivered on December 23, 1965

The original judgment shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Civil Procedure District Court.

Judgment on the grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s Attorney

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, although the land in question located in Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul and the land in question was actually designated as the land substitution for non-party 78 lots of land in the same Gu, the land in question located in Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul as state property, and the plaintiff's legal representative has been leased from the defendant state, who had acquired the right to use and profit from the above land substitution, before August 15, 197 after the above land substitution for land was originally designated as the land substitution for land, and continued to cultivate the land after being leased from the defendant state, which had acquired the right to use and profit from the above land substitution for land as the land substitution for land, around March 1950, it is alleged that he acquired the farmland distribution and completed the redemption on November 24, 1964 and acquired the ownership of the land. However, as alleged by the plaintiff, even if the plaintiff received the land lawfully as the land substitution for land as the land substitution for land, if the land in question became final and conclusive, the defendant, the owner of the previous land, was not entitled to acquire the ownership of the land in question.

However, unless there are special circumstances, the owner of the previous land upon completion of the replotting plan shall own the substitute land.

Since the plaintiff acquired ownership, if the plaintiff was distributed in the course of cultivating the ground for the rights of the previous owner of the land in this case, the plaintiff acquired ownership of the land in this case upon completion of a land substitution plan and lost ownership of the land in this case. Thus, if the plaintiff was distributed in the course of cultivating the land in this case by borrowing it from the defendant state who acquired the right to use and benefit from the land in this case in accordance with a substitution plan as alleged by the plaintiff, the land acquired by the plaintiff shall be deemed to be the land in this case, and even if the plaintiff had the right to use and benefit from the land in this case, it shall not be deemed to be the land in this case, and even if the land substitution plan was completed, the defendant who cultivated the land in this case shall not acquire ownership of the land in this case, and shall be deemed to be legitimate in the interpretation of the Farmland Reform Act and the laws and regulations on urban planning (see this case, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 63Da14, Feb. 28, 1963).

It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices of the Supreme Court Dog-gu (Presiding Judge) Dog-Jak and Mag-gu Mag-gu