구 도시계획법 제49조 와 농지걔혁법과의 관계

Even if farmland has been purchased from the Government under the Farmland Reform Act, the Farmland Reform Act does not apply to the land that has been enforced by the Urban Planning Act prior to the completion of the farmland distribution under the same Act, as well as Article 49 of the former Urban Planning Act and paragraph (1) of the Addenda

Article 49 of the former Urban Planning Act

64Da1642 delivered on April 20, 1965, 64Da1642 delivered on May 16, 1965 (Supreme Court Decision 1977 delivered on May 16, 1965, and Article 49(1)1805 of the summary of the decision and the Urban Planning Act(amended by Act No. 1805)

Plaintiff

Defendant

Seoul Central District Court (62A5363) of the first instance trial (Supreme Court Decision 62Ga5363)

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

The winning portion of the plaintiff in the original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All costs of litigation shall be borne by the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

The plaintiff confirmed that the defendant et al. has the right to cultivate dry field 1,902 for the dry field 1,200 square meters and the dry field 1,902 square meters in the annexed table among the forest land in the annexed table.

The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant, etc.

The plaintiff has filed a judgment identical to the cancellation of the part against the plaintiff in the original judgment and the purport of the claim, and the defendant, etc. shall revoke the plaintiff's winning part

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

The judgment that the total cost of the lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff is sought.

The purport of the plaintiff's assertion is that the real estate in the attached list 3 is owned by both the defendant and the defendant's country (the shares of two persons, i.e., Japan and Japan). The land category is forest land or farmland that the plaintiff cultivated with the defendant's permission since 1946 and received from 1946, and is distributed to the plaintiff pursuant to the Farmland Reform Act. Since part of the shares belongs to the farmland, the farmland is within the farmland reform, and therefore the farmland has been protected only as it is, it is within the farmland reform, the defect by receiving the distribution has not been applied for distribution after the end of December 1959. However, although the decision of distribution has been postponed by the defendant's objection, it is confirmed that the plaintiff had the right to cultivate in order to receive distribution from the time of implementation of the Farmland Reform Act, as well as from the time of its implementation, until now before it has reached the plaintiff's right to cultivate in order to receive distribution. Accordingly, the defendant et al. raised the land from the original point to 1957 to the date.

(1) No evidence No. 4 (Evidence Evidence No. 4), No. 6 (Evidence Evidence No. 19), No. 43, No. 48 (Evidence Evidence No. 5), No. 50 (Evidence Evidence No. 1), No. 52 (Evidence Evidence No. 5), No. 67 (Evidence Evidence No. 47), No. 97 (Evidence Evidence No. 1), No. 49, No. 57 (Evidence Evidence No. 1), No. 2 (Evidence Evidence No. 47), No. 97, No. 1, and No. 97) were found to be established by testimony No. 5 (Evidence No. 1, No. 47), No. 1, No. 51-2, No. 3 (Evidence Evidence No. 1)

In addition, according to the contents of Eul evidence Nos. 54 (Written Answer to Inquiry into Facts) and Eul No. 73 (Certificate), which can be presumed to be established by the parties, it can be acknowledged that the forest land in question is designated as a residential area within the Seoul Urban Planning Area under Article 17 and Article 2 subparag. 28 of the Urban Planning Act, and is confirmed to have been announced publicly by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport No. 1,031 of Construction Notice No. 14, Aug. 14, 1964. As such, since the Farmland Reform Act does not apply to the objects of facilities designated as a residential area as the land within the urban planning area pursuant to Article 49 of the Urban Planning Act for the purpose of receiving farmland distribution, the plaintiff's claim for confirmation of the existence of farming right as a pre-sale for receiving farmland distribution

Even if the forest land in this case is designated as a residential area under Article 17 of the Urban Planning Act, the plaintiff asserts that such a ground alone does not infringe the plaintiff's right to receive distribution of the land already occurred, but the theory of lawsuit based on the premise that the Farmland Reform Act is applied to this forest land shall not be employed as it is merely an independent opinion.

Therefore, without making any decision on the remaining issues, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed. The plaintiff's winning part of the original judgment is unfair, and the defendant's appeal return to the ground of appeal and the plaintiff's appeal is without merit. Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed pursuant to Article 384 of the Civil Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 384, 386, 89, and 96 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judge Term of Office (Presiding Judge)