Registration refund and State liability after an invalid farmland distribution disposition;

If the State-owned land in the Bupyeong Station that the Ministry of Transport has been in charge is disposed of without taking over the State-owned land in accordance with Article 10 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act, and the ownership transfer registration has been made on the ground of the completion of repayment, and thereafter a request for cancellation of the ownership transfer registration is made on the ground that the above distribution disposition is null and void, and if the land is returned to the State by a favorable judgment,

Article 2 of the State Compensation Act, Article 10 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act

Seoul High Court Decision 71Da1599 decided Feb. 22, 1972 (도요 Article 2(159)683 of the State Compensation Act, 1998 house 20 ①75 decided Feb. 22, 1972

Plaintiff

Korea

Seoul Civil History District Court (81 Gohap2375)

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 28,350,000 won with an interest of 25 percent per annum from the following day to the day of full payment:

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

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 main defense of this case

Since the defendant asserts that the lawsuit of this case without undergoing a compensation review procedure under the State Compensation Act is unlawful, it is obvious that the lawsuit of this case is based on the premise that the defendant would go through a compensation review procedure as of March 3, 1967, since the time of the above tort is the time prior to the enforcement of the State Compensation Act, since it is obvious that the time of the tort is the time of the amendment of the State Compensation Act as of March 3, 1967, which was established by the State Compensation Act, since the defendant made a disposition of farmland distribution that was null and void for 129 square meters before Bupyeong-dong, Incheon in 1950, and the defendant left the state of illegality which caused the transfer of ownership to the plaintiff on August 13, 1964.

2. Judgment on the merits

In light of the above legal principles, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Gap evidence Nos. 6, Gap evidence Nos. 5 (Redemption), Gap evidence Nos. 3-2, and Gap evidence Nos. 7 and the purport of the pleading is as follows: (4) the above disposition of the defendant's non-party Nos. 9 and the above disposition of the non-party Nos. 1 to the non-party No. 4 were issued to the non-party No. 8, and the non-party Nos. 1 to the non-party No. 97 and the non-party No. 1 to the non-party No. 4 were found to be invalid by the non-party No. 1 to the non-party No. 97. The non-party No. 1 to the non-party No. 4 were the non-party No. 9 and the non-party No. 1 to the non-party No. 1 to the non-party No. 97 were the non-party No. 1 to the non-party No. 16.

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the time of calculating the damages of the plaintiff's health care unit and the defendant's negligence is one of the reasons for damages liability of this case, and that the time of calculating the above damages is the time when the ownership transfer registration of the plaintiff and the non-party, etc. can be cancelled actually, and that the damages exist only within the previous potential. Thus, this case shall be calculated on the basis of the market price of the pertinent real estate as of August 31, 1979, for which the registration of the plaintiff, etc. will be cancelled in the above lawsuit, as of August 31, 1979. Meanwhile, since the above land was recovered to the defendant, the above buildings constructed on each of the above land were not constructed without legitimate title, and the above 30-party building's ownership transfer registration for the above land was not completed after the above building was constructed, and the above 20-party building's ownership transfer registration for the above land was left at the market price of the above 30-party 2, as well as the above 30-party 2's/3.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 28,350,000 won and the following day after the delivery date of the application for modification of this case, which is clear from October 23, 1981 to the full payment date, the interest rate of 25% per annum, which is the legal interest rate of Article 3 (1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for this case is justified, and this conclusion is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant who has lost it. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)