All owners of farmland purchased under the Farmland Reform Act shall have the interest in seeking the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration which is void of the cause by exercising the right to compensate for the farmland to the State.

All owners of farmland purchased under this section shall have the benefit to seek the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration which is void of the cause by means of the exercise of compensation rights against the State with respect to the farmland.

Article 5 of the Farmland Reform Act

Supreme Court Decision 67Da790 Delivered on July 4, 1967

Plaintiff

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 68Na654 delivered on November 21, 1968

We reverse the original judgment.

The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal No. 1 by the Plaintiff’s attorney are examined.

Since farmland not self-fishered or more than three information is purchased from the State due to the implementation of the Farmland Reform Act, the former owner who purchased the farmland shall have the interest in seeking the cancellation of the registration of ownership transfer invalid by exercising compensation rights against the State (see this case, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 67Da790, Jul. 4, 1967). According to the reasoning of the original judgment, the court below recognized that the land was owned by Nonparty 1 of the original father of the Plaintiff, and that the Defendant would have been cultivated as farmland from March 1948 to the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, and that the farmland was purchased by the State due to the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act on the ground that the said prop and its heir were not self-fishered at the time of the enforcement of the said Act, and therefore, the Plaintiff, the above Nonparty 1 or his heir, lost the ownership of the land, thereby losing the title to seek the cancellation of the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the Defendant.

However, the plaintiff's assertion of this case is that the defendant has cultivated this case temporarily from 1948.3 to 1948, and the plaintiff's father, non-party 1, who died in collusion with the non-party 2, is living in the above non-party 2, pretended to be living in the above non-party 2, the plaintiff's assertion of this case is that he filed a lawsuit against the deceased for the execution of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer of this case's real estate mobilization to the Seoul Civil and Security District Court (65A4203) and obtained a favorable judgment and completed the registration of ownership transfer. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion of this case is to be cancelled, and the plaintiff's assertion of this case

Therefore, the plaintiff can seek the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration of this case, which is the invalidation of the cause through the exercise of compensation right against the state, as established above. However, without examining and determining this point, the court below judged that the plaintiff lost the title to seek the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration of the defendant's name since it purchased the real estate in this case, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the right to claim the cancellation registration of the ownership transfer registration of the nullity of the farmland, nor in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the right to claim the cancellation registration of ownership transfer registration of the nullity of the ground for the farmland,

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Supreme Court Judge Ma-dong (Presiding Judge) Ma-dong (Presiding Judge)