The distribution of farmland to national schools shall be null and void automatically.

Since a national school is only a facility for education of children or a public structure, it is not possible to become the subject of legal ability and thus it is not entitled to receive farmland distribution. Therefore, farmland distribution for a national school is null and void.

Article 11 of the Farmland Reform Act

Lee Jae-ho

1. The grounds for appeal by the court below are dismissed.

Gwangju High Court Decision 80Na303 delivered on November 19, 1981

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the assertion of rights:

It is not a legitimate ground for appeal because it does not fall under any ground for appeal stipulated in Article 11 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc., such as misconception of facts against the rules of evidence cited by the theory of lawsuit

2. With respect to a licensed appeal:

1. The judgment of the court below is justified. The real estate of this case is a part of 410 square meters for the original invoice 924-2, the 1924-2 response, and the 410 square meters for the above invoice 924-2 response, 924-2, the 60 square meters for 924-10 square meters for 924 and 924-10 square meters for 350 square meters for the above 350 square meters for 924, and the above 350 square meters for 97.24 square meters for 924 square meters for 97.24 square meters for 924 square meters for 924 square meters for 924 square meters for 97.24 square meters for 97 square meters for 924 square meters for 924 square meters for 924 square meters for 924 square meters for 196.24 square meters for 1959.24 square meters for 192424 square meters for 19424242.

A person shall be appointed.

The above 924-2 No. 410 square meters was one parcel on the public register, but the actual size of 150 square meters and 260 square meters was divided into the boundary between 20 square meters and 410 square meters, and the above 150 square meters was transferred to the non-party 1 who was the father of the plaintiff, under the condition that the loan was completed again, and the remaining 260 square meters was transferred to the non-party 2 under the condition that the loan was completed immediately from the above national school, and the above 410 square meters was completed, but the above 260 square meters was donated to the plaintiff as the above 20-year housing construction site without completing the registration of ownership transfer for the above 410 square meters, and it was confirmed that the above 20-year housing construction site was completed by the non-party 2, the non-party 2, the non-party 2, and the non-party 2, the non-party 2, and the non-party 2, the non-party 92.

2. If 924-10, 223, 924-10, prior to the subdivision of this case into the land as the above original adjudication, became a farmland distribution to the National School, its distribution shall not be deemed null and void. This is because the above national school is merely a public structure within the one side facility for child education, and thus is not entitled to receive farmland distribution since it cannot be the subject of legal capacity. Therefore, even if it was acquired from the national school directly or through an intermediary, the transferee's father, who is the assignee, is also not entitled to obtain any right. In addition, even if the national school duly received farmland distribution, the above crime or the plaintiff cannot be said to have acquired ownership in the name of the principal or the plaintiff who is his heir, as long as the principal or the plaintiff who was his heir, even if he received the farmland distribution was not registered under the name of the plaintiff who was the owner of the land, the above crime or the plaintiff cannot be said to have acquired the ownership.

Therefore, the claim of this case, which the plaintiff claims ownership as the cause of the claim, return to the effect that it is without merit, and further, it is unnecessary to examine whether the grounds for the registration of the defendants exist or are lawful. Nevertheless, without examining and making a decision on the existence of the plaintiff's ownership, it is reasonable to see that the plaintiff's claim has been accepted without examining and making a decision on the existence of ownership, and in this regard, it is reasonable to see that there was an error

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges who are involved in the reversal and return of the judgment of the court below based on the permission order.

Justices Jeon Soo-hee (Presiding Justice)