(a) The meaning of "return" as stipulated in Article 19 of the Farmland Reform Act;

(b) The case holding that it is reasonable to presume that the return as prescribed by the Farmland Reform Act has been made in case where the person who received and distributed farmland has renounced his farmland to pay the distributed farmland by year;

A. "When all or part of farmland is returned" as stipulated in Article 19 of the Farmland Reform Act refers to the farmland that has been returned to the Government by undergoing the procedure as stipulated in Articles 50 and 52 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act. Thus, it does not constitute a case where a person who received and distributed farmland transfers farmland to another person without undergoing such procedure for return and has moved out or has de facto renounced or has abandoned the farmland and has not been abandoned. In this case, the original distribution disposition is still valid, but it still remains in the state where the repayment has not

(b) The case holding that it is reasonable to presume that the return as prescribed by the Farmland Reform Act has been made in case where the person who received and distributed farmland has written his farmland in the repayment register of distributed farmland and in the annual payment of farmland; and

Article 19 of the Farmland Reform Act, Articles 50 and 52 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 81Meu100 Decided July 28, 1981 (Gong1981, 14204) (Gong1981, 14204) decided October 10, 1984 (Gong1984, 1794) 92Da25472 Decided March 26, 1993 (Gong193, 1288)

Plaintiff

Korea

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 93Na9445 delivered on May 21, 1993

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Civil District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

On the second ground for appeal

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the farmland in this case where non-self-employed farmland was distributed to the non-party 1 at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, and that the deceased non-party 2 was returned to the government due to the waiver of repayment by the above non-party 1, the term "farmland returned to the government" under Article 19 (1) of the Farmland Reform Act refers to the farmland that was returned to the government in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 52 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, and thus, it does not constitute the farmland that remains in the state where the repayment was not completed by the distributionr in fact by abandoning and neglecting the farmland in this case without following the procedure for return. The court below rejected the above non-party 1's assertion that the farmland in this case

2. The acquisition of non-self-owned farmland by the State following the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act is a condition subsequent to the cancellation that this farmland will not be distributed. Thus, farmland not yet distributed at the time of enforcement of the Act on Special Measures for the Adjustment of Farmland Reform (hereinafter referred to as the "Special Measures for the Adjustment of Farmland") or farmland returned to the Government shall be reverted to the original owner, with the exception of farmland to be distributed to those who are registered or confirmed as state-owned under Article 2(1) of the Special Measures for the Adjustment of Farmland Act, determined not to be distributed simultaneously with the enforcement of the Special Assistance Act. Even if farmland is registered as state-owned, it shall be reverted to the original owner. The non-owned farmland, other than farmland, which is distributed again under Article 2(2) of the Special Assistance Act, shall be returned to the original owner within the period of one year after the purchase of the government, and shall still be returned to the original owner (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 79Da3110, Apr. 10, 1979; 200Da181818.

3. However, upon examining the record, the defendant stated that "the farmland of this case was returned on December 4, 1992 (the date of the second pleading of the court of first instance)" in the preparatory brief (the date of the second pleading of the court of first instance) dated December 4, 192, "the farmland of this case is farmland distributed to the non-party 1. The non-party 1 gives up repayment as farmland distributed to the non-party .. . . . . . . . . 'the land which was nationalized pursuant to the provisions of Article 2 (1) of the Act of Special Cases, which was not distributed as farmland purchased by the Government. . . . . . . . . . . . . is leased to the non-party 3 as state property. . . . . . . . . .) and on the third day of the court of first instance, the defendant stated that "the non-party 1 renounced the repayment of

Furthermore, the health belt Gap evidence No. 2-1, 2 (the sign and content of distributed farmland repayment register) states that the above non-party 1 was distributed 1,380 square meters of the farmland in this case and the three parcels of land in this case ( Address 1 omitted) and ( Address 2 omitted) and that the farmland in this case was renounced, and the change in Gap evidence No. 8 (Annual Payment for Farmland Price) stated that the same purport is the same in the distribution size. The current Farmland Reform Act does not use the term "defluence" but does not use the term "defluence", but it was originally used the term "refluence" in the original Farmland Reform Act (Act No. 31, Jun. 21, 1949) instead of the term "refluence" under the current law, it is unreasonable to say that the above provision is a waiver of farmland repayment after the amendment, so it is unreasonable to require the defendant to return the farmland in this case and to present the presumption of the above facts to the plaintiff in this case.

Therefore, the court below's decision that there is no evidence shall be a violation of the rules of evidence or an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to distributed farmland.

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remainder of the grounds of appeal, the judgment below is reversed and remanded. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)