1. Of the judgment subject to a retrial, the part corresponding to the Plaintiff (Plaintiff) among the judgment subject to a retrial is revoked and thus revoked.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The farmland distribution, etc. for the instant Ddong land is 1) the land of approximately 300,000 square meters (hereinafter “Ddong-dong land of this case”) in Seoul E, 416 square meters, etc.

The former and the first answer was accepted by Japan during the Japanese occupation period from May 1942 to 1943, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of “National Land”. Nevertheless, the land of this case was cultivated as farmland by its original cultivator without being used as military facilities or military land, and the land category on the registry remains before and after the amendment was made on March 10, 1950. After the Farmland Reform Act was enacted on March 10, 1950, the farmland distribution procedure was conducted as to the land of this case. The farmland distribution procedure was conducted between the Defendant and the person who received farmland distribution from the Defendant paid some repayment during the period from May 1953 to 1952. However, from May 1953, the Ministry of National Defense had the Defendant claim that the land of this case was managed by the Army, and the Defendant did not receive the right to manage and manage the land of this case from the Ministry of National Defense as part of the industrial settlement project of this case.

In August 1961, Seoul Special Metropolitan City started the new construction of 1,200 public housing units, 1,100 simple housing units, and completed the relocation of construction from August 1962 to September 1962, and created G, H elementary school, I market, private housing sites, etc. in the above Ddong unit.

B. The deceased A (hereinafter “the deceased”)’s complaint and winning of the civil action against farmers, including the deceased A)

(1) 85 persons including Section 85 (hereinafter “Initial Plaintiffs”)

On June 19, 1964, the Defendant asserted that “78,422 of the land in this case was distributed among the land in the Ddong District Court,” and that the repayment was completed.