In the event that the land of which the Korean Government General has the right to use and profit-making has been incorporated into the land of the Gyeongsung National University, the validity of the farmland distribution for such land.

Generally, in order to be an administrative property, it must be state property on the premise of it, and since the land which the country has only been designated as the land scheduled for substitution was incorporated into the land to be used by the state as the land scheduled for substitution, it cannot be viewed that the land was owned by the state, because it was incorporated into the land scheduled for use by the state as the land scheduled for substitution. Therefore, the farmland distribution to the cultivator of the land

Article 11 of the Farmland Reform Act, Articles 3 and 4 of the State Property Act

Supreme Court Decision 66Da919 Decided July 26, 1966 delivered on October 7, 1975

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant 1-Appellee, Counsel for defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 79Na630 delivered on February 28, 1980

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.

According to the judgment of the court below, the court below recognized the non-party 1 as the non-party 2's land owner's non-party 2's non-party 1's new land substitution land transfer registration for the non-party 4's previous land substitution land transfer registration for the non-party 2's new land substitution land transfer registration for the non-party 9's new land substitution land transfer registration for the non-party 2's new land substitution for the non-party 1's new land substitution for the non-party 4's new land substitution for the non-party 9's new land substitution for the non-party 2's new land substitution for the non-party 9's new land substitution for the non-party 4's new land substitution for the non-party 4's new land substitution for the non-party 1's new land substitution for the non-party 9'. The non-party 2's new land substitution for the non-party 1's new land substitution for the non-party 9's new land substitution for the non-party 1'.

However, in general, if certain property is to be administrative property, it must be state property (see Supreme Court Decision 66Da919 delivered on July 26, 1966; Supreme Court Decision 74Da1805 delivered on October 7, 1975). The court below stated Eul evidence Nos. 11, 12, and 13 delivered on the premise of the court below, and documents verification results of the court below's relation to state property in 1945 (20 years in Japan) and the purport of the oral argument, it is difficult to recognize that the country acquired the ownership of land Eul at the time of the above farmland distribution, and even if the land was incorporated into "B" and "B" as land reserved for replotting, it is hard to find that the land was not owned by the state and the land was not owned by "B" as land reserved for replotting.

Therefore, the court below held that the farmland distribution was null and void on the ground that the above farmland distribution was an administrative property at the time of the distribution of farmland, i.e., the "B" land at the time of the above distribution of farmland, and thus, it cannot have affected the judgment by misapprehending the legal principles on the farmland distribution, and therefore, the judgment of the court below cannot be reversed.

Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court which is the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices O Sung-sung(Presiding Justice)