The heir of the right to share farmland, if the family head heir at the time of the Gu Civil Code is not a farmer.

Where a person who received and distributes distributed farmland succeeds to the farmland pursuant to the former Civil Act due to his/her death, if he/she does not maintain his/her livelihood by the cultivation of farmland even though he/she is a person who is not a farmer in the position of the family heir in light of the purpose of the Farmland Reform Act which does not permit the distribution of farmland, he/she cannot inherit his/her right to share farmland, and if he/she does not maintain his/her livelihood by the cultivation of the farmland, it shall be deemed that the

Article 105 of the Civil Act, Articles 11 and 15 of the Farmland Reform Act

Supreme Court Decision 68Da573 Decided June 18, 1968 (No. 164) (No. 144) 72Da700 Decided June 27, 1972, Supreme Court Decision 73Da509 Decided February 12, 1974 (No. 22(1))

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and 2 Defendants, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee

Daegu District Court Decision 90Na10030 delivered on May 8, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In light of the legislative intent of the Farmland Reform Act that does not allow the distribution of farmland to a person other than a farming household if a person who is in the position of a family heir does not maintain his/her livelihood due to the cultivation of the farmland, the right to share farmland can not be inherited, and the heir of the property who is a family owner or a family member living in his/her house in his/her house and maintains his/her livelihood due to the farming of the farmland succeeds to the inheritance of a family owner or a family member living in his/her house in his/her house in his/her house (Article 68Da573, Jun. 18, 1968).

The judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below was killed on April 18, 1953 when the non-party 1 cultivated the farmland of this case on March 25, 1950 and repaid the price. The non-party 2, who was the head of Dong, was actually adopted to the non-party 3 (the above non-party 1's punishment) at the time of the non-party 1's death, and resided in the above non-party 3's house. The above non-party 1's tea and the non-party 3 had already died before the above non-party 1's death, and only four South and North were living with the above non-party 1 while living with the above non-party 1, and paid the price in this case. After the above non-party 1's death, the fact that the payment was completed on July 30, 1956 was confirmed lawfully, and the plaintiff's right to share the farmland of this case based on the confirmation was not unlawful in the misapprehension of legal principles.

In addition, as determined by the court below, the argument that the ownership of the farmland in this case was returned to the original owner on the premise that the farmland in this case was legally distributed to the plaintiff is not distributed. The argument is without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)