2014Da233787 Registration of transfer of ownership

Korea Rural Community Corporation

Korea

Jeonju District Court Decision 2014Na2658 Decided November 13, 2014

July 9, 2015

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The judgment of the court below

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the plaintiff's assertion that the real estate of this case was transferred from the defendant pursuant to Article 16 of the former Agricultural Community Modernization Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 2199 of Jan. 12, 1970 and repealed by Act No. 5077 of Dec. 29, 195; hereinafter "former Agricultural Community Modernization Promotion Act"), as the site of the reservoir located in the Jeju Rural Community which is the farmland improvement facility, and that the ownership of the real estate of this case was acquired by transfer from the defendant pursuant to Article 16 of the former Agricultural Community Modernization Promotion Act (hereinafter "former Agricultural Community Modernization Promotion Act"), since the right of the State, etc., which occurred with respect to the establishment of the farmland improvement facility under Article 16 of the former Agricultural Community Modernization Promotion Act means the right of the State, etc., which has already been reverted to the State, etc. before the establishment of the farmland improvement facility, the real estate of this case cannot be deemed to have accrued to the defendant as to the real estate of this case.

2. Judgment of the Supreme Court

A. According to the main sentence of Article 16 of the former Agricultural Community Improvement Promotion Act, a farmland improvement cooperative which has completed the registration of establishment under Article 15(1) shall acquire and manage the farmland improvement facilities within the said zone from the installer of the cooperative. In this case, the rights and duties of the State, local governments, or agricultural promotion corporation which have occurred with respect to the installation of farmland improvement facilities shall be comprehensively taken over. Article 2 subparag. 1 of the former Farmland Improvement Promotion Act provides that the "facilities necessary for the preservation of irrigation, drainage facilities, roads, and other farmland or for the use thereof" shall be included as the "farmland improvement facilities". The rights and duties of the State, local governments, or agricultural improvement cooperatives established under Article 16 of the former Agricultural Community Improvement Promotion Act were transferred to the State, and the ownership of the site was naturally transferred to the State, if the ownership of the farmland improvement facilities established under Article 16 of the former Agricultural Community Improvement Promotion Act was transferred to the National Farmland Improvement Association. This is also applicable to the farmland improvement cooperative established under Article 96 of the former Farmland Improvement Promotion Act.

B. Examining the record in light of the above legal principles, since the real estate in this case is the site of the main reservoir established by the Habong Repair Cooperative, which was the land of the main reservoir established by the Habong River Cooperative, and its name was changed to the Habong River Improvement Cooperative through the Habong River Improvement Cooperative, and the Plaintiff was merged into the Hawon Farmland Improvement Association, and thereafter the Plaintiff succeeded to the rights and obligations of the Hawon Farmland Improvement Association under Article 9 of the Addenda of the former Agricultural Infrastructure Corporation and Farmland Management Fund Act, and it is naturally acquired by law, and it is the Defendant’s ownership at the time of its establishment. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer on the real estate in this case to the Plaintiff

C. Nevertheless, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s claim of this case on the ground that the ownership already reverted to the State, etc. before the farmland improvement facility installation project does not constitute “right to the farmland improvement facility” under Article 16 of the former Agricultural Community Modernization Promotion Act. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the scope of application under Article 16 of the former Agricultural Community Modernization Promotion Act, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The allegation contained in the grounds

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

The presiding judge shall keep the record of the Justice

Justices Min Il-young

Chief Justice Park Jong-young

Justices Kim Jae-han