Where the cultivator of the land to be reserved for replotting has completed the repayment of the land by distributing the land to be reserved for replotting, whether he/she acquires ownership (affirmative)

Where the designation and disposition of a land substitution is made in accordance with a land substitution plan, if a person who has cultivated the land substitution in accordance with the previous land owner's right to use and profit from the land substitution in accordance with the land substitution plan completes the repayment after having been distributed the land substitution plan in accordance with the Farmland Reform Act, the person who has acquired the ownership of the land substitution in itself, and even if the land substitution becomes final and conclusive following the completion of the land substitution plan, there is no change in ownership acquired by the

Article 11 of the Farmland Reform Act, Article 57 of the Land Readjustment and Rearrangement Projects Act

Supreme Court Decision 67Da1028 Decided December 26, 1969 (Gong17-4, 225), Supreme Court Decision 82Meu134 Decided September 14, 1982 (Gong1982, 941), Supreme Court Decision 80Da1501 Decided September 25, 1984 (Gong1984, 1710)

Plaintiff (Attorney Hwang-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea

Seoul District Court Decision 97Na13831 delivered on June 18, 1997

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Where a disposition of designating a land as a land substitution under a land substitution plan has been taken, if a person who cultivated a land substitution to use and benefit from the land as a land substitution by putting the previous land owner into the right to use and benefit from the land as a land substitution plan has completed the repayment of the land substitution plan after having been distributed the land as a result of the implementation of the Farmland Reform Act, the person who owns the land substitution shall acquire the ownership of the land substitution plan itself, and even if the land substitution is finalized after the completion of the land substitution plan, there is no change in the ownership acquired by the person who owns the land, and the previous land owner shall not acquire the ownership

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the court below's findings and determination of the court below ordering the defendant to make an additional registration of ownership transfer as to the shortage of shares arising therefrom are just and acceptable, and there is no error of law such as misconception of facts or misunderstanding of the legal principles as to a replotting disposition against the rules of evidence. The grounds for appeal pointing this out are not acceptable. It is not acceptable to accept.

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 on the bench.

Justices Cho Chang-hun (Presiding Justice)