(a) The government acquisition of farmland does not immediately become final and conclusive on the ground that farmland not distributed at the time of the enforcement of the Act under Article 2(1) of the Act on Special Measures for the Adjustment of Farmland Reform Projects could be registered nationally.

(b) It is reasonable to see that farmland as incorporated within the urban planning zone is not allocated as a whole;

(c) Article 12 of the Act on Special Measures for the Adjustment of Farmland Reform Projects does not apply to a lawsuit in which the original landowner seeks the cancellation of ownership transfer registration against the State on farmland because it was purchased by the Government pursuant to Article 5 subparagraph 2 of the Farmland Reform Act and became final and conclusive not to distribute thereafter.

A. It cannot be said that the Government's acquisition of farmland becomes final and conclusive on the ground that paragraph 1 of this Article has been made to be registered on a state-owned basis.

(b)any farmland incorporated within the urban planning zone shall be deemed to have become final and conclusive not to be distributed until the plan is modified;

C. The government's purchase of farmland by non-farmers is intended to distribute the farmland to farmers. Therefore, if the government was unable to distribute the farmland even after purchase, it shall be returned to the original state if it was impossible to distribute the farmland, and the government's acquisition is not finalized on the ground that non-distribution farmland purchased under Article 2 of the Act on Special Measures for the Adjustment of Farmland Reform Projects has been registered as state-owned property.

Article 2(1) of the Act on Special Measures for the Adjustment of Farmland Reform Projects, Article 49 of the Urban Planning Act

Plaintiff

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 70Na2551 delivered on March 25, 1971

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

(1) On the first ground for appeal

According to the provisions of Article 12 of the Act on Special Measures for the Adjustment of Farmland Reform Projects, interested parties who have an objection due to the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act and this Act may file a lawsuit within one year from the enforcement date of this Act. Since Article 1 of the same Act intends to provide for matters necessary for the prompt completion of farmland reform affairs under the Farmland Reform Act, as stated in the purpose of Article 1 of the same Act, as stated in this case, as in this case, the Government purchased farmland of a person other than a farmer under subparagraph 2 of Article 5 of the Farmland Reform Act as a condition for cancellation, but did not distribute the farmland, and the condition for cancellation has been completed, it is reasonable to view that the lawsuit claiming the implementation of the procedure for the registration for the cancellation of ownership transfer registration of the land purchased to the State is not included. The judgment of the court below with this purport is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the interpretation of legal principles. The Supreme Court decision cited in the

(2) On the second ground for appeal:

As seen above, purchasing farmland by a person other than a farmer is only intended to distribute the farmland to the farmer, so even if the Government purchased the farmland, it shall be returned to the original farmer if it becomes impossible to distribute the farmland. It cannot be said that the Government's acquisition becomes final and conclusive on the ground that the Government acquired the farmland in accordance with the provisions of Article 5 subparagraph 2 of the Farmland Reform Act pursuant to the provisions of Article 2 of the Act on Special Measures for the Adjustment of Farmland Reform Projects, but not distributed farmland is registered as a state-owned property pursuant to the provisions of Article 5 subparagraph 2 of the Act. The provisions of Article 49 of the Urban Planning Act are asserted to the effect that, as of January 20, 1962 at the time when this Act enters into force, it is still effective only for distribution, and shall not be employed. Since the land at issue in the instant case is an independent opinion of the appellant with the purport that the Government has already purchased the farmland, and even if there is no possibility that the plan will be modified, it cannot be accepted until the alteration of the plan is finalized.

Therefore, this appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party.

This decision is consistent with the opinions of the involved judges.

The judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) of the Republic of Korea shall take part in the interest of the Red Round.