Plaintiff 1 and 2 others (Law Firm Kelim, Attorneys Dia-hwan et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Republic of Korea (Government Law Firm Corporation, Attorney Tae Tae-Gyeong, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

December 17, 2010

Suwon District Court Decision 2009Da18178 Decided May 20, 2010

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant will implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership preservation, which was completed on October 26, 1957 by the same registry office with respect to the real estate listed in (1) Section 1 Section 1 Section 1 Section 1 Section, which was completed on July 9, 1957 by the Suwon District Court, Suwon District Court, Ganwon District Court, which was completed on July 9, 1957; and (2) each real estate listed in (2) through (15) Section 1 Section 2 Section 1 Section 1 Section 1 Section 1 Section 1 Section

2. Purport of appeal

Plaintiffs: The part against the Plaintiffs in the judgment of the first instance is revoked and the Plaintiffs’ claim corresponding to this part is accepted.

Defendant: The part against the Defendant among the judgment of the first instance court is revoked and the Plaintiffs’ claim corresponding to this part is dismissed.

1. cite the judgment of the first instance;

A. The reasoning of the judgment of the first instance court is as follows (the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act).

B. Parts used for repair;

●제1심 판결 제2면 제16행의 “오산동(오산리)” ⇒ “오산동(오산동)”

●제1심 판결 제3면 제9행의 “제3771호” ⇒ “제3068호”

●제1심 판결 제3면 제19행의 “모현동사무소장” ⇒ “모현면장”

The provisions of the 11st through 20th of the Judgment of the first instance court shall not be applied to the portion “may be recognized,” respectively.

⇒ “갑 제60호증, 을 제1, 4 내지 6호증(각 가지번호 포함)의 각 기재와 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, 피고는 국가유공자의 복지지원 재원 마련을 위한 기금증식사업으로 별지 제1목록 제2 내지 15항 기재 각 부동산(이하 ‘제2부동산’이라 하고, 별지 제1목록 제1항 기재 부동산은 ‘제1부동산’이라 한다)이 포함된 용인시 모현면 오산리 일대 부동산에 ‘88골프장’을 건설하여 운영하기로 하여, 1984년 12월부터 1985년 6월까지 사인 소유의 토지들을 매입하고 1985. 12. 16. 건설교통부장관으로부터 골프장 사업을 승인받은 후 골프장을 건설하여 1988. 7. 8. 88골프장을 개장한 사실, 제2부동산은 88골프장의 그린, 조경지, 카트 도로 등으로 이용되고 있는 사실, 원고들 내지 그 부친인 소외 3은 제2부동산에 관하여 피고 앞으로 소유권보존등기가 마쳐질 당시인 1957년경뿐 아니라 88골프장 건설 사업이 시작된 1984년경에도 제2부동산이 있는 그 일대에 거주하였는데, 피고 명의의 위 각 소유권보존등기나 제2부동산이 골프장 부지에 포함되는 것에 어떠한 이의제기를 하지 않았던 사실, 더구나 소외 3은 1980. 10. 7. 당시 시행 중인 부동산소유권 이전등기 등에 관한 특별조치법에 의하여 위 오산리에 있던 그 소유의 토지(지목은 임야, 전, 답, 하천 등이다) 50필지에 관하여 소유권보존등기를 한 후 1984년부터 1986년에 걸쳐 피고에게 88골프장 부지로 매도하였고, 해주오씨종중의 대표자 자격으로 1980. 4. 30. 위 오산리 산 5-1 등 4필지 임야에 관하여 위 특별조치법에 의하여 종중 명의의 소유권보존등기를 한 후 마찬가지로 피고에게 매도하였는데, 매도한 위 총 54필지의 토지는 피고가 88골프장 조성 당시 매입한 토지의 60%에 달하는 규모였던 사실 등을 각 인정할 수 있고”

(c)in Part 9, Chapter 4, the first instance court shall add to the following:

The plaintiffs claim that the second real estate was purchased by the defendant under the former Farmland Reform Act (repealed by Act No. 4817 of Dec. 22, 1994, hereinafter the same) and the remaining land that was not distributed to the original owner should be returned to the original owner from the time of purchase. Thus, the defendant's possession of the farmland purchased is the possession in the nature of the title.

I examined the following facts: (a) land was included in the farmland subject to purchase by the Defendant under the former Farmland Reform Act, in the circumstance that the original 2 real estate was the mother land before its subdivision; (b) the portion of the above land was excluded from the farmland distribution, clearly stating that the owner of the above land is self-definite (No. 10, No. 10, No. 2, No. 473) or yellow land (No. 473) and the portion of the above land was excluded from the farmland distribution; and (c) the land corresponding thereto was the second real estate distribution; (d) the Defendant, as a result of the actual survey, issued a registration of ownership transfer to the distributors of the remaining land before its subdivision; and (e) the Defendant, as to the land distributed to Nonparty 3, who was its owner, was not entitled to the compensation for the remaining land after the subdivision of the farmland distribution method or the fact that the Defendant purchased the remaining portion of the land after the subdivision of the farmland in accordance with the aforementioned farmland distribution method, can not be found to have been sufficiently recognized by the purport of the distribution of the Act.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and each appeal by the plaintiffs and the defendant is dismissed as it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Mansung (Presiding Judge)