Whether farmland purchased by the government is excluded from distribution under the Urban Planning Act;

If a parcel of land has been purchased from the State as a non-self-owned farmland at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, but no farmland distribution procedure has been completed, and the land has been designated as a residential area within an urban planning zone subject to the Urban Planning Act, and the land has been replaced by a land to be substituted by a land readjustment project execution zone subject to the Urban Planning Act, it would be impossible to distribute farmland after being designated as the land subject to the

Article 87 of the Urban Planning Act, Addenda to the Urban Planning Act, Article 5 of the Farmland Reform Act

68Da1892 decided Nov. 19, 1968 (Supreme Court Decision 6224 decided Nov. 19, 1968; Decision No. 49(8)1806 of the Urban Planning Act (Gu)

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and one other

Daegu District Court of the first instance (76Gahap5, decided 76Gahap5)

All appeals by the defendants are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendants.

Defendant 1: (a) performed the procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration on October 31, 1970 and delivered the said land to the Plaintiff on the ground of the adjudication of the successful bid on June 23, 1971, Nos. 10262, the Daegu District Court Posi Port Registry of the Daegu District Court 24 to 23 square meters, 170 land of 19:3 Hobbe, 170 Do-dong 170 Do-dong Do-dong 170.

Defendant 2 performed the procedure for cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a mortgage on June 14, 1974, which was received on June 14, 1974 by the aforesaid registry office, and on June 13, 1974, based on the mortgage contract of KRW 2,000,000,000 for the above land.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendants.

The delivery portion of the above land may be provisionally executed.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

(1) There is no dispute between the parties to the following facts:

With respect to the land stated in the purport of the claim (hereinafter referred to as the "land in this case"), the registration of ownership transfer based on the sale on June 24, 1968, No. 12728, which was received on August 24, 1968, stated in the purport of the claim in the non-party 1, and the registration of ownership transfer based on the above registration office No. 10262, Jun. 23, 1971, which was received on June 23, 1971, and the registration of ownership transfer based on the decision to grant the successful bid on Oct. 31, 1970, which was received on Oct. 14, 1974, which was received on June 14, 1974 by the above registration office, was completed on June 13, 1974, respectively.

(2) Comprehensively taking account of the following facts in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (each copy of the register, evidence, certificate of fact, certificate of site, substitute lot certificate) and each testimony of non-party 2, 3, and 4 (except the part contrary to the facts found below among the testimony of non-party 4) of the court below, the following facts may be acknowledged. Contrary to this, the part of the testimony of non-party 4 is not trust, and the part of the statement of the evidence No. 3 and the part of the certificate of the certificate of the seal imprint issued by the court to the non-party 1 submitted by the plaintiff at the time of the above verification is a copy of the certificate of the seal imprint attached to the above application for the registration (this is without dispute between the parties) if the plaintiff is a copy of the certificate of the seal imprint attached to the above application for the registration (this is a copy of the certificate of the seal imprint attached to the above application for the registration) and the fact that the power of attorney was forged as the next facts recognized.

(A) The land of this case is originally the land substituted on June 15, 1974 in accordance with the land readjustment and rearrangement project in case of port at one to 484 square meters of 292, the land of this case, which is the previous land.

(B) The above 484 was originally owned by Nonparty 5 and owned by Nonparty 6, the fleet of Nonparty 1, and again purchased and owned by the deceased Nonparty 7 before the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act. As to this, the registration of transfer of ownership was made on November 20, 1948 in the name of Dong, and that person died on February 15, 1949, and the Plaintiff was succeeded to the above 484 square meters (this land was transferred to the Plaintiff on August 2, 1968).

(C) However, the above 484 was cultivated by Nonparty 6 from before the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act until 1973, and therefore, the above 484 was the land purchased from the State as a non-self-owned farmland due to the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act. However, the above 484 was the land that was purchased from the State, but the distribution procedure was not completed, Nonparty 1, who was under way, followed the above 484 square meters to the fleet, forged documents necessary for the application for the registration of ownership transfer, such as the Plaintiff’s certificate of personal seal impression, etc., and completed the registration of ownership transfer thereafter on August 2, 1968.

(D) On September 28, 1968, the non-party 1 borrowed money from the defendant 1 and the non-party 1 as collateral and applied for the registration of establishment of a mortgage as to the above 484 square meters to his members. However, on June 14, 1974, the mortgagee who failed to repay the principal and interest of the debt, and the defendant 1 applied for a voluntary auction, and on June 23, 1971, he received the decision to grant a successful bid, and the above land was delivered to the defendant, and the defendant borrowed money from the defendant 2 as collateral and completed the registration of establishment of a collateral on June 14, 1974 with regard to the above 484 square meters (the land at that time was designated as reserved land) above.

(E) On November 24, 1970, the above 484 was designated as a residential area within the urban planning zone at Port on which the farmland was not distributed under the Farmland Reform Act and was incorporated into an area to implement the land readjustment project on June 15, 1974, and was subject to a land substitution disposition on which the land in this case was land category. In fact, the land in this case was part of the site, and part of this case was transferred.

(3) Thus, if the above 484 was purchased as non-self-owned farmland at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, but the farmland distribution procedure is not completed, and the land in this case was incorporated into a land readjustment project under the Urban Partition Project Act, and the land in this case was replaced by the land in this case as above, the above 484 or the land in this case, which is the substitute land, was subject to the application of the Urban Planning Act and excluded from the application of the Farmland Reform Act, thereby making it impossible to distribute farmland under the Farmland Reform Act. Thus, the state purchase of non-self-owned farmland under the Farmland Reform Act on the condition that the farmland is not distributed, on the condition that the ownership of the land was returned to the plaintiff, who is the owner of the original land, as the owner of the land, and according to the facts acknowledged above, the registration completed in the future of Non-party 1 as to this case shall be deemed as a transfer of ownership without any cause, and therefore, it shall be deemed that the registration of ownership transfer and the establishment of mortgage was completed in the future.

2. Determination as to the defendants' defense

The defendants are originally owned by the deceased non-party 6, who is the fleet of the non-party 1, and the registration of ownership transfer was made in the name of non-party 7 under title trust, and again, the registration of ownership transfer was made in the name of the plaintiff under the name of the non-party 1. Thus, it seems that the non-party 7 asserts that the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the non-party 1 accords with the substantive rights. However, the fact that the non-party 7 purchased the above 484 square meters from the non-party 6 and completed the registration of ownership transfer and had the non-party 6 completed the registration of ownership transfer, and then allowed the non-party 6 to file

3. Conclusion

Therefore, Defendant 1, the owner of the land in this case, performed the procedure for the cancellation registration of the above transfer of ownership as to the land in this case, and the obligation to deliver the land in this case, and the obligation to implement the procedure for the cancellation registration of the establishment registration of the above establishment registration of the establishment of the ownership over the land in this case, which was completed in the future. Thus, each claim against the Defendants in this case against the Defendants is justified, and the original judgment with the conclusion is justified, and all appeals filed by the Defendants are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Judges Park Jae-sik (Presiding Judge) Kim Hun-Un