[1] The relationship between the ownership of land not distributed at the time of the enforcement of the Act on Special Measures for the Adjustment of Farmland Reform Projects

[2] In case where a profit-making corporation of Japan, which is the original owner of land not distributed at the time of the enforcement of the former Act on Special Measures for the Adjustment of Farmland Reform Projects, is a Dormant Corporation or a bereaved corporation, whether such land belongs to the State

[1] Of farmland purchased from the State due to the enforcement of the former Farmland Reform Act (amended by Article 2 of the Addenda to the Farmland Act, Act No. 4817 of Dec. 22, 1994), the land not distributed at the time of the enforcement of the former Act on Special Measures for the Adjustment of Farmland Reform (amended by Article 2 of the Addenda to the Farmland Act, Act No. 4817 of Dec. 22, 1994) shall be reverted to the ownership of the original owner, with the exception of farmland to be distributed to farmers registered or confirmed as state-owned under Article 2(1) of the same Act, the non-distribution of which has become final and conclusive at the same time as of the enforcement of the same

[2] According to Article 2(3) of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to the State, a profit-making corporation owned by Japan is deemed to have reverted stocks or shares. Therefore, real estate and other property owned by a profit-making corporation owned by Japan shall be deemed excluded from the property devolving upon the State. Furthermore, there is no ground to view that the profit-making corporation is a Dormant corporation or a bereaved corporation that has no substance as at the present time,

[1] Article 2 (1) of the former Act on Special Measures for Adjustment of Farmland Reform Projects (amended by Article 2 of the Addenda to the Farmland Act, Act No. 4817 of Dec. 22, 1994) / [2] Article 2 (3) of the Act on Special Measures for Adjustment of Farmland Reform Projects, Article 2 (1) of the former Act on Special Measures for Adjustment of Farmland Reform Projects (amended by Article 2 of Addenda to the Farmland Act, Act No. 4817 of Dec. 22, 1994)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 81Meu100 Decided July 28, 1981 (Gong1981, 14204) (Gong1981, 14204) Supreme Court Decision 87Da3168 Decided April 25, 198 (Gong198, 897), Supreme Court Decision 92Da33701 Decided November 18, 1994 (Gong195, 37) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 86Da804 Decided September 9, 1986 (Gong1986, 1386), Supreme Court Decision 94Da22309 Decided September 27, 194 (Gong194, 2813), Supreme Court Decision 95Da299509 Decided December 5, 195 (Gong1995, 195)

Korea

Defendant 1 and 140 others (Attorneys Jeong Jong-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Incheon Metropolitan City and one other (Attorneys Lee Dong-ju et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 93Na18688, 27101 delivered on May 26, 1995

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The court below held that the land not distributed at the time of the enforcement of the Act on Special Measures for the Adjustment of Farmland among the farmland purchased from the State in accordance with the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act shall be reverted to the original owner, with the exception of the farmland to be distributed to farmers registered or confirmed as state-owned under Article 2 (1) of the same Act, and shall be reverted to the original owner, even if following the plaintiff's assertion, the part of the land that the plaintiff asserted that the land was distributed and repaid in accordance with the provisions of the Farmland Reform Act prior to the land substitution purchased by the plaintiff pursuant to the provisions of the Farmland Reform Act was owned by the distribution recipient, and the remaining land that was not distributed until the enforcement of the Act on Special Measures was returned to the original owner of the Korean Automobile Co., Ltd. (an independent party intervenor dismissed at the original trial) at the same time as the above Act was enforced, and therefore, the plaintiff did not have any title to cancel each registration in the name of the defendants and the selected party member (see the above judgment of the court below).

Meanwhile, according to Article 2(3) of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to the State, a profit-making corporation owned by Japan shall be deemed to have reverted stocks or shares. Thus, the legal principle that property, such as real estate owned by a profit-making corporation owned by Japan shall be deemed to have been excluded from the property devolving upon the State, also is an established precedent of party members (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da22309 delivered on September 27, 1994). Even if the above Korea Automobile Corporation, the original owner of each of the land of this case, was a profit-making corporation owned by Japan, as discussed, it cannot be deemed that each of the land of this case belongs to the Plaintiff as the property devolving upon the State. Furthermore, even if there are various grounds, such as the above company is a Dormant corporation or Dormant corporation, which has no substance at present, it is apparent that the grounds to view otherwise exists, and there is no reason to conclude all the issue of this case as to the distribution of farmland devolving upon the property devolving upon the State.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)