Whether the disposition of farmland is legitimate by treating the farmland as reverted property at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act.

As long as the fact that this piece of land was farmland at the time of enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act is recognized, it cannot be treated as the reverted property under the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to Which the said land belongs, and thus a disposition to deny it is null and void.

Article 2 of the Farmland Reform Act

Supreme Court Decision 66Da733 delivered on July 5, 1966

Plaintiff

Defendant 1

Defendant 2

Seoul Central District Court (63Ga8237) of the first instance court (Supreme Court Decision 63Ga8237)

(1) The part concerning Defendant 1 in the original judgment is revoked and the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant is dismissed.

(2) The Plaintiff’s appeal against Defendant 2 is dismissed.

(3) Of the costs of lawsuit, the costs of lawsuit in the first and second instances between the plaintiff and the defendant 1 are all borne by the plaintiff, and the costs of appeal against the defendant 2 are borne by the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff’s “Defendant 1 against the Plaintiff” is named as Defendant 1’s New Map 34-5, 243, and Defendant 2’s 65-1, and 433, respectively.

"Costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant, etc." and a declaration of provisional execution are sought.

The plaintiff, among the original judgment, has revoked the part concerning the defendant 2 and sought a judgment accepting the plaintiff's claim against the defendant, and the defendant 1 has sought a judgment on the Dong area of Paragraph (1) of this Article.

The fact that the principal land in the purport of the claim is divided by the defendant, etc. is without dispute between the parties, that the plaintiff asserts that the land is its own ownership and sought delivery of the land. In full view of Gap evidence Nos. 1-5, 4, 7, 9-1 through 10, which does not dispute each establishment, Gap evidence Nos. 1-5, 7, 9-1 and 10, the land containing the original purport of the claim (as a whole, evidence No. 1-6, which does not dispute the establishment of Gap evidence Nos. 1-6, it is presumed that the land No. 65-1, 43, 65-1, 15, 15, 15, 58, 11, 11, 58, 58, 58, 1, 58, 1, 500, 5,0000, 5,0000,000,000) is presumed to be owned by the plaintiff.

The defendant, etc. alleged that 34-5 land was distributed respectively to the non-party 2 at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, and that 65-1 land was in dispute with the plaintiff's ownership, and as such, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 6 through 8 without dispute with the plaintiff's ownership, and witness Nos. 2 through 4, which can be recognized as genuine by the non-party 3's testimony, can be acknowledged that the land was already reclaimed at the time of enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act and cultivated as farmland, and as such, Gap evidence Nos. 3-2, 8 cannot be asserted that the above land was not trusted in light of the above evidence No. 9-7, and that the non-party 1's ownership of the above land could not be asserted as being disposed of by the non-party 2's disposal of the farmland, and thus, the plaintiff's disposal of the land could not be asserted as legitimate by the non-party 1's disposal of the farmland under the Farmland Reform Act.

If so, it is true whether the plaintiff's main claim should be dismissed on the basis of the original judgment, that is, the conclusion is different from that of the original judgment, and the part against the defendant 1 is actual. Thus, the part against the defendant 2, who makes a conclusion with the party member, cannot be exempted from revocation by Article 386 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the part against the defendant 2, who makes a conclusion with the party member, is just and there is no ground for appeal against the defendant 2. Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal shall be dismissed by Article 384 of the same Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 96,

Judges Cho Jong-dae (Presiding Judge)