The case where it is deemed that the sale of farmland has been ratified during the repayment incidental to the delivery;

It is reasonable to view that the original purchaser of farmland before the completion of the repayment, who was not the original lender of the farmland, and completed the repayment with the delivery of the farmland from the original lender of raw water, has been transferred to the buyer under the Farmland Reform Act or in the name of the buyer, and that the original distributor ratified the above sale in this case where there is no objection from the buyer of raw water so far, unless there is any special circumstance from the buyer of raw water so far. Therefore, the above registration is a valid registration in accordance with the substantive legal relationship.

Article 16 of the Farmland Reform Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1644 delivered on January 21, 1969 (Supreme Court Decision 17Da1644 delivered on January 25, 196, Supreme Court Decision 16Da1674 delivered on January 26, 199

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and one other

Daegu District Court (74Gahap460) in the first instance

The appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Defendant 2: (a) to Defendant 1, the procedure for the cancellation registration of ownership transfer registration, as the registration receipt No. 23233 on July 11, 1966; and (b) to the Plaintiff on March 29, 1960, as the registration receipt No. 7126 on March 29, 1960, pursuant to the above registry office No. 7126 on March 29, 1960, the procedure for the cancellation registration of ownership transfer registration, which was followed by the Daegu District Court Decision No. 23233 on July 11, 1966.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant, etc.

If the original judgment is revoked, it shall be the same as the writing in the purport of the claim other than the original judgment.

As a result of the urban partition rearrangement project in Daegu-gu, Daegu-dong, 1625 to 474 on December 1, 1970, which was originally owned by the plaintiff, the fact that the above 1163-2 to 154 to 75 square meters of the above 1163-2 to 175 square meters of the above 1153-2 to the above 1153-2, and the fact that the ownership transfer registration has been made in the name of each of the defendants, such as the purport of the claim, as to the land in the above 2 lots of land,

The plaintiff's assertion that the above land was owned by the non-party 1 for the purpose of the plaintiff's 474 square meters above and that the non-party 1 would be the director of the above land at the time of enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, and that the non-party 2 would be able to cultivate the above land, and that the non-party 2 would have been replaced with the land of this case due to the non-party 2's execution of the land improvement project, but the non-party 1 would not have been able to redeem the above land at the time of 1956. The non-party 1 would not have been able to purchase and sell the above land at the time of 6th of 7th of 7th of 1960. The non-party 2's statement that the above 47th of 7th of 7th of 7th of 197 were identical to the above land and that the above 9th of 197th of 196 of 7th of 196th of 3th of 19.

However, although Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2 received each piece of land at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, there is no reason to believe that the above assertion is invalid since the above land was on the part of the plaintiff's parent funeral, but there is no evidence to recognize that the above land was on the part of the plaintiff's head. Further, the plaintiff argued that the above non-party's receipt of farmland distribution in the paper of the achieved military, not on the location of the land at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, is legally invalid. However, although the repayment register with the non-party 1 was kept on the original military paper, it is recognized as a result of the verification of the records at the party member's meeting, it is not reasonable to conclude that the non-party 1's residential area was on the part of the original achieved military document, and thus, the repayment register of the land was kept on the above paper, and it is not on the part of the non-party 1's farmland reform at the time of execution of the Farmland Reform Act. Thus, it is not on the ground that it was transferred to the above farmland reform.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for cancellation of this case, on the ground that each ownership registered in the name of the defendants is null and void as to this case's land, shall be dismissed as there is no reason to do so. Accordingly, the plaintiff's appeal with this conclusion is just and without merit, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is in accordance with Article 384 of the Civil Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 95 and 89 of the same Act with respect to

Judges Lee Jong-dae (Presiding Judge)