The validity of the distribution of farmland that is not indicated by the person entitled to be distributed at the time of the public notice of inundation

If there is only an indication of farmland to be distributed and an indication of a person to be distributed is not made in the publication of the daily table of distributed farmland by each farm household under Article 32 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act, it cannot be deemed as a daily table of distributed farmland by each farm household under the same Article. Accordingly, the result of the distribution without a specific publication under the same Article is a significant and obvious defect and thus, it shall be null and void a year.

Article 32 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act

Supreme Court Decision 66Da651 delivered on June 21, 1966 (Supreme Court Decision 1256Da1256, Decision 22(59)1710 of the Farmland Reform Act, Article 1(12)1625 of the Farmland Reform Act, Article 187(12)294 of the Civil Act)

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and three others

Seoul Central District Court (64A4739) in the first instance trial (Supreme Court Decision 64Da4739)

(1) Revocation of the original judgment shall be revoked.

(2) As to the Plaintiff:

Defendant 1 shall register cancellation of ownership transfer registration due to the completion of the repayment of distributed farmland on June 7, 57, 5423 received by the Youngpo District Court, Youngpo District Court No. 5423, Feb. 10, 57, for real estate listed in (1), (2), and (3) in the separate sheet;

Defendant 2, upon receipt of the same registry office on June 26, 57.6.26, shall carry out the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration due to sale on May 10, 57.

(3) Defendant 3 delivered to the Plaintiff the real estate indicated in the same list (1), (3), Defendant 4, respectively, the real estate indicated in the same list (2).

(4) All the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant, etc. in the first and second instances.

(5) The above (3) can be provisionally executed.

The plaintiff sought the revocation of the original judgment and the order branch judgment and the sentence of provisional execution.

First, we examine the main safety defense of the defendant, etc.

Defendant 1 received farmland distribution on March 12, 56.3 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on February 10, 57.2.10, Defendant 1, under the agreement that he would not raise any objection to the distribution of farmland on March 27, 57, the Plaintiff received from Defendant 4, the husband of the above agreement, and thus, the lawsuit against the above agreement should be dismissed unfairly. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against the above agreement should be dismissed without any interest in the protection of rights. However, in full view of the Plaintiff’s testimony by Non-Party 1 and Non-Party 1, it can be acknowledged that the Plaintiff received gold 50,000 from Defendant 1 on March 27, 27, 54 as settlement payment for the real estate, but it is not recognized that the above money was received from Defendant 1 without any objection to the distribution of farmland, as otherwise alleged by Defendant 1’s assertion, and thus, it should not be recognized as other defenses against this agreement against Defendant 1’s non-party 1.

According to the following reasoning, if Defendant 1 among the plaintiff's assertion that the farmland was located on February 10, 57.6.7, the registration of ownership transfer was received by the Seoul District Court, etc. on the ground of the completion of repayment of distributed farmland on June 7, 57. The defendant 2 purchased the land in the separate sheet (1), and (3) from Defendant 1 and passed the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on the ground of sale under the above registry No. 601 on June 26, 57. The fact that the defendant 3 occupies the land indicated in the separate sheet (1) and (3) and that the defendant 4 occupied the land indicated in the separate sheet (2) for the purpose of this case's distribution of farmland on the ground of the above list No. 7,92-2, 12-4, 12-12, 26, and 981 of the Enforcement Decree of the former Farmland Conservation Committee's new statement of distribution of farmland on each of the above list No. 1, which is the Seoul Metropolitan City Mayor.

The defendants asserted that the distribution effect of farmland distributed once by a person with the authority to distribute the farmland under the Farmland Reform Act continues unless the distribution is corrected by the court's decision under Articles 22 and 23 of the same Act, and that the head of Yeongdeungpo-gu revokes the distribution and re-distribution to the plaintiff is invalid. Thus, the above defendants' argument is examined as follows: the above defendants' assertion is limited to the case where the defect in the farmland distribution procedure is minor and it is impossible to see that there is a significant and obvious defect in the farmland distribution procedure, such as this case, and if it is impossible to see that there is a farmland distribution even if it does not go through any revocation, it is not so invalid. On November 29, 622, the farmland committee cancelled the distribution of farmland to the defendant 1 (the evidence No. 2 of this Act and the statement No. 12-3 of this case). Thus, it should be viewed as the cancellation of the declaration of nullity of the distribution of farmland as void. Thus, the above argument is groundless based on the defendant's dissenting opinion.

The following Defendants acknowledged only 1,238 square meters prior to November 24, 62. According to the decision of the Farmland Committee's appeal, among the farmland in this case, the Plaintiff's right to distribute to the Plaintiff among the land recorded in the annexed sheet as farmland in the annexed sheet. Thus, it is unreasonable for the Plaintiff to exercise the right to claim cancellation of the registration of transfer only to the land in this case, but to seek cancellation of the registration of transfer. However, upon examining the Plaintiff's claim, the Plaintiff's title to the land in this case is not based on the above decision of appeal, rather than under the premise of the above decision of appeal, the Plaintiff's right to the land in this case is null and void, and the Plaintiff received legitimate farmland distribution as to the farmland in this case. Accordingly, the Plaintiff may seek cancellation of the registration of transfer registration of ownership as to each of the above farmland in this case without any legal ground, and the Plaintiff's right to claim cancellation of the registration of ownership transfer from the non-party 2, which is the non-party 3's right to the land in this case.

Therefore, the plaintiff's main claim seeking a judgment on the same contents as the plaintiff's main claim is justified, and the original judgment which has different conclusions is unfair, and the plaintiff's appeal is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 199 of the Civil Procedure Act with respect to the provisional execution order of Article 96 and Article 92 and Article 89 of the same Act with respect to the burden of litigation costs, as to the provisional execution order of Article 19 of the same Act.

Judges Cho Jong-dae (Presiding Judge)