A. Whether “a person who voluntarily withdraws a lawsuit after a final judgment on the merits has been rendered” under Article 240(2) of the Civil Procedure Act includes an intervenor who voluntarily withdraws the lawsuit (negative)

(b) Where any indication of an area subject to distribution is clerically written in a document related to distribution of farmland, a copy of the correction of such indication;

(c) the validity of a decision to revoke a disposition of distribution of farmland without an objection or appeal under Articles 22 and 23 of the Farmland Reform Act;

(d) Where the cultivator of the land to be reserved for replotting has received a distribution of the same land to be reserved for replotting and repaid, the acquisitor of ownership of such land;

A. Article 240(2) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "a person who withdraws a lawsuit after a final judgment on the merits has been rendered" means only the party to the lawsuit, and the supplementary intervenor does not constitute such supplementary intervenor.

(b) In the distribution of farmland, if there is any error in the office error of the authorities in the distribution of farmland in writing in the indication of the subject matter of distribution in the distribution-related documents, the correction of indication shall be effective as the first place of distribution.

(c) The farmland allocation disposition that became effective once is not valid can not be effectively revoked without filing an objection or an appeal pursuant to Articles 22 and 23 of the Farmland Reform Act, etc., and thus a decision to revoke the farmland distribution made without following such legitimate procedures shall be null and void.

(d) Where a designation and disposition of a land substitution pursuant to a land substitution plan has been taken, and the former landowner has cultivated the land substitution to use and benefit from the land substitution with the right to use and benefit from the land substitution, and has completed the reimbursement after having been distributed the land substitution to the land substitution under the Farmland Reform Act, the person who has acquired the ownership of the land substitution itself, and even if the land substitution becomes final and conclusive following the completion of the land substitution plan, the previous landowner shall not acquire the ownership of the land substitution,

A. Article 240(2) of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 22(c) and Article 23(d) of the Farmland Reform Act; Article 57(b) of the Land Readjustment Project Act; Article 11 of the Farmland Reform Act

Supreme Court Decision 66Da1994 delivered on December 23, 1966, 73Da783 delivered on May 28, 197, 67Da1224,1225 delivered on September 5, 1967, 67Da1741 delivered on September 24, 1968, 67Da1028 delivered on December 26, 1969

[Judgment of the court below]

Plaintiff’s Intervenor 1 and 13 others, Attorney Kim Yong-jin, Counsel for the plaintiff’s Intervenor

Defendant 1 and two others

Defendant 2 and 25 others, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul Trust Bank Co., Ltd., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 73Na2164 delivered on April 30, 1980

All appeals filed by the plaintiff and defendant et al. (excluding defendant 1, defendant 3-Electronic Co., Ltd., and Japan Bank) are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against each appellant.

1. The plaintiff's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below dismissed the plaintiff's claim as to the above land portion on the ground that the plaintiff's non-party 1, the succeeding non-party 1, the plaintiff, at the original city ( Address 1 omitted) No. 921 after the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, could not recognize the fact that he received the distribution of the attached drawing D, "Ma, Da, b, and the part" as attached to the judgment of the court below. In taking such measures, in light of the records, the court below is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles of the Farmland Reform Act, such as the theory of lawsuit, and there is no error of law in the judgment of the court below that the plaintiff cannot assert the ownership of the above land by the res judicata effect of the final judgment of the lawsuit. However, according to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, without any relation to the above judgment, the court below dismissed the plaintiff's claim for the registration of ownership transfer and the cancellation procedure.

2. The grounds of appeal by the defendant, etc. (the defendant 1, 3-electronics, and 1-day bank; hereinafter the same shall apply) are examined.

(1) A) "A person who withdraws a lawsuit after the final judgment on the merits has been rendered" in Article 240(2) of the Civil Procedure Act means only the party to the lawsuit, and it does not constitute the supplementary intervenor.

In the same purport, it is just that the plaintiff's lawsuit of objection does not conflict with the grounds for prohibition of filing a lawsuit, and there is no error of law such as theory of lawsuit.

B) As determined by the court below, if the plaintiff in the Seoul Civil District Court case No. 66592 (Seoul High Court No. 67Na253, Supreme Court No. 68Da9566) was the non-party 2 and the defendant was the State, the lawsuit of objection between the other parties is not contrary to the res judicata of the judgment in the above case. The judgment of the court below to the same effect is justified.

C) As determined by the court below, if the subject matter of the lawsuit in Seoul Civil District Court No. 1015 of 1956 (Supreme Court No. 908, Supreme Court No. 58, Oct. 5, 1956) is about 63 square meters and ( Address 2 omitted) 183 square meters prior to the confirmation of land substitution at the time of original purchase, part of the land prior to the confirmation of land substitution ( Address 4 omitted) is distributed as farmland and ( Address 1 omitted) land, etc. newly assigned to the land according to the confirmation of land substitution under the premise that the ownership of the land is acquired immediately, is different from the lawsuit subject to the lawsuit, so the judgment of the court below is just in that it does not conflict with the res judicata effect of the judgment of the above case, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to res judicata effect as to the res judicata effect of the final judgment like the theory of lawsuit.

(2) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the non-party 3, Japan, recognized that the above part of the previous land prior to the land substitution area was not located in the non-party 1, Dongdaemun-gu ( Address 1 omitted), ( Address 3 omitted), and ( Address 9 omitted) land merchants as 153 ju, and had the land owners cultivate the previous land prior to the land substitution area based on the right to use and profit from the land substitution. The above non-party 1 omitted the above part of the previous land prior to the land substitution area to the non-party 1, who was not located in the non-party 4, and omitted the above 970 square meters of the previous land prior to the land substitution area by the non-party 1, which was located in the non-party 4, which was located in the non-party 1, the court below found that the above part of the previous land substitution area was not located in the non-party 1, 1950 square meters of the farmland distribution method of the non-party 1 and the above land distribution order of Dongdaemun-gu.

(3) In the case of farmland distribution, if the clerical error of the authorities made a clerical error in the indication of the land subject to distribution in the distribution-related documents, the correction of the indication is valid as the first allocation-related decision of the party members (see Supreme Court Decision 66Da1994 delivered on December 23, 196, Supreme Court Decision 73Da783 delivered on May 28, 1974). The decision of the court below that the correction is valid under the same facts as above is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the Farmland Reform Act, such as the theory, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the Farmland Reform Act. The farmland distribution-related disposition valid once cannot be effectively cancelled without the objection or appeal pursuant to Articles 22 and 23 of the Farmland Reform Act. Therefore, in this case, the revocation of the farmland distribution without the legal procedure as to the above non-party 1 shall continue to exist.

Although the court below did not make a clear judgment as to this point, the court below did so, but the above disposition of the court below remains valid, and it did not affect the result of the judgment that accepted the plaintiff's claim. Therefore, it is without merit.

(4) Even at the time of implementation of a land substitution plan, the previous land owner is entitled to obtain the right to use the land to the land substitution, even if there is no change in the ownership of the land substitution plan at the time of implementation of the land substitution plan (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 4292Da17,18, Dec. 14, 1961; Supreme Court Decision 68Da390, Apr. 30, 1968). Where the land substitution plan is disposed of pursuant to the previous land substitution plan pursuant to the farmland substitution plan, the previous land owner is entitled to obtain the right to use the land substitution plan at the time of execution of the farmland substitution plan, and if the person who cultivated the previous land with the right to use and benefit from the land substitution under the farmland substitution plan has completed the redemption with the land substitution plan with the land distribution right at the time of completion of the land substitution plan, and the previous land owner is not entitled to acquire the ownership of the land substitution plan at the time of the above land substitution plan (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da12567, supra.

(5) According to the records, the land and reasons indicated in the decision of the court below in the decision of the court below are different from those indicated in the decision of the court below. However, if the order and reasons of the decision of the court below are comparison, "Defendant Seoul Trust Bank" in the decision of the court below (No. 5 omitted) 135 square meters and 6 square meters in Seoul Dongdaemun-gu (No. 5 omitted) can be recognized that the defendant Seoul Trust Bank is an obvious clerical error in the attached drawing "No. 100 square meters in the Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul (No. 5 omitted) 135 square meters and 6bbbbes in the annexed drawing" in the part of "No. 100 square meters in the annexed drawing among 135 square meters and 6bbes in Seoul.

3. Therefore, all appeals by plaintiffs and defendants are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kang Jin-young (Presiding Justice)