The case holding that a decision to revoke farmland distribution by the farmland committee is null and void as a matter of course;

If the Plaintiff completed repayment after lawful distribution of farmland, it can be presumed that the distribution of farmland by each farm household has become final and conclusive through lawful distribution of land distribution table, and in such a case, an objection cannot be raised pursuant to Article 22 of the Farmland Reform Act, barring any special circumstance. Therefore, the farmland commission’s decision to revoke the disposition of distribution of farmland to the Plaintiff by receiving an objection from the Nonparty is null and void as a matter of course.

Article 22 of the Farmland Reform Act, Article 32 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act

Supreme Court Decision 72Da2080 Delivered on March 13, 1973

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and seven others

Busan District Court (70Da4512)

The original judgment shall be revoked.

1. On April 15, 1963 with respect to the real estate indicated in the separate sheet (A), the registration of transfer of ownership by reason of the sale on April 10, 1963 as Busan District Court's Busan District Court's receipt of registration office No. 4660, and

2. With respect to the above real estate, the registration of transfer of ownership on July 29, 1963 by Defendant 2, 3, 4, and 5 as to the above real estate on July 20, 1963, which was received by the above registry office on July 20, 1963;

3. On January 31, 1966, the receipt by the above registry office No. 1282 of the receipt of the above registry office on January 24, 1963, the transfer of ownership on the ground of sale and purchase as indicated in [Attachment] List No. 6

4. On October 1, 1970 with respect to the real estate indicated in the Attachment List (A), Defendant 7: (a) registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of sale on September 30, 1970, which was received by the above registry office No. 41906;

5. On May 31, 1958, the defendant Busan City shall implement the procedure for the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration as a result of sale on May 27, 1958 as the receipt of the above registry office No. 5996 on May 31, 1958.

6. The defendant country will implement the procedure on November 21, 1962 for the registration of ownership transfer on the real estate indicated in the attached list (A) (C) (D) to the plaintiff.

7. All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant, etc. in the first and second instances.

The same shall apply to the order.

The real estate indicated in the separate sheet (A) is likely to be divided into 80 e.g., the same place where the Plaintiff acquired the ownership since the Plaintiff completed the repayment upon distribution. The farmland reform law was enforced and it was jointly purchased from Defendant 1 to Defendant 4, 5 on July 20, 1963, which was purchased from Nonparty 1 who lost ownership at the same time with the enforcement of the farmland reform law, and the Plaintiff’s assertion that the ownership transfer registration, which was made under the joint ownership, is null and void on July 29, 1963, was duly summoned, but Defendant 2, Defendant 3 et al. did not appear on the date for pleading of this case, and did not clearly dispute because they did not submit a reply and other legal brief. The real estate in this case was all 80 e.g., the real estate owned by Nonparty 1 was divided into 56 e., 80 f., the fact that the ownership transfer registration was made under each of the Defendants’ names as indicated in the separate sheet from the above Nonparty, and there is no dispute.

In light of the above evidence No. 1, No. 2, No. 1, 5, etc., the court below's decision No. 1 and No. 2 were 80,000,000,000 were 7,000,000,000,000 were 7,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00,00,00.

The defendant et al. asserted that the above 56th farmland distribution disposition against the plaintiff was revoked on July 19, 1963 by the non-party 1's objection (the de facto mother is limited to the non-party 1 who raised an objection and the plaintiff's objection) on the ground that the plaintiff did not cultivate the 56th grade of the above 56 grade of the 75 grade of the 75 grade of the 56 grade of the 56 grade of the 56 grade of the 56 grade of the 56 grade of the 56 grade of the 56 grade of the 56 grade of the 56 grade of the 56 grade of the 196 grade of the 197 grade of the 197 grade of the 197 grade of the 197 grade of the 197 grade of the 197 grade of the 197 grade of the 197777. The plaintiff's decision on the farmland distribution disposition against the plaintiff cannot be accepted as the 26th of the 3rd's 1's of the 2.

Therefore, the plaintiff shall be deemed to have lawfully acquired the ownership of the 56th grade on the ground of the completion of repayment. Accordingly, the defendant country shall be obligated to implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of the completion of repayment to the plaintiff, and each transfer of ownership registered in the name of the defendant et al. is conducted on the premise that the other defendant et al. has ownership to the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1. Therefore, the registration of the lack of the cause shall be deemed to be invalid. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case for this case shall be deemed to have the duty to cancel the registration of the name as stated in the disposition. It is so decided as per Disposition by the application of

[Attachment List omitted]

Judges Lee Yong-su (Presiding Judge)