Where the land designated as a land scheduled for replotting becomes final and conclusive after the farmland is distributed, the ownership of the land shall revert.

Where the land designated as a land scheduled for replotting becomes final and conclusive after the farmland is distributed, the ownership of the land shall revert.

Article 62 of the Land Partition Business Act

Supreme Court Decision 65Da1224, Sep. 5, 1967; Supreme Court Decision 67Da1225, Sep. 24, 1968; Supreme Court Decision 65Da1741, Sep. 24, 1968>

Plaintiff 1 and three others

Defendant

Supreme Court

The appeal for retrial is dismissed.

Costs of retrial shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds for retrial by the defendant's agent shall be examined.

The facts established through the original judgment are as follows: (a) No. 454 square meters was originally owned by Japan; (b) it was divided into 4 March 27, 1945, and (c) No. 215 square meters, which was ( Address 2 omitted), were cultivated at the time when the Farmland Reform Act was implemented; (d) the Nonparty received distribution and completed the redemption, and the transfer of ownership registration procedure was completed. However, the land ( Address 1 omitted) above was designated as the land of ( Address 3 or 5 omitted) land by the disposition of the designation of the land to be reserved for replotting under the City Planning Project at Daejeon Daejeon-si, Daejeon-si, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City City Planning Project. Furthermore, even if the above ( Address 2 omitted) No. 215 square meters were the land to be reserved for replotting for farmland distribution, it cannot be said that the land actually cultivated in the distribution of farmland and that there was no error in distribution as a part of the answer 215 square meters.

In addition, according to the facts established by the court below, the urban district planning project in Daejeon City was completed in January 1, 1964 and was completed in January 29, 1964, and the land substitution was determined as 52 square meters large 52 square meters ( Address 5 omitted) and registered to that effect.

The above judgment of the court below is without merit that the above decision of the court below is not inconsistent with the purport of the non-party 2's new land distribution right as the non-party 2's new land distribution right as the non-party 2's new land distribution right of the non-party 2's new land distribution right as the non-party 2's new land distribution right of the non-party 2's new land distribution right as the non-party 2's new land distribution right of the non-party 2's new land distribution right of the non-party 2's new land distribution right of the non-party 2's new land distribution right as the non-party 2's previous land distribution right of the non-party 2's new land distribution right of the non-party 2's new land distribution right of the non-party 2's new land distribution right of the non-party 2's new land distribution right of the non-party 3 land as the non-party 1's previous land distribution right of the non-party 21's new land distribution right of the land.

Therefore, this lawsuit for retrial shall be dismissed as it is groundless, and the costs of the lawsuit for retrial shall be borne by the losing party.

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

The judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) of the Red Net Sheet