Reversion of farmland ownership in case of the occurrence of a cause not to be distributed under the Urban Planning Act while the ownership is attributed to the Government and not distributed under the Farmland Reform Act;

Even if the land belongs to the Government as the Plaintiff’s non-self-owned farmland at the same time as the implementation of the Farmland Reform Act, the application of the Farmland Reform Act is excluded by the occurrence of any cause not attributable to the Government due to the implementation of the Urban Planning Act (Article 2(1)(c) while the land is not distributed to the Government, so the ownership of the land, etc. in this case shall be reverted to the Plaintiff who is the prop, due to the fulfillment of such cancellation condition.

Article 5 of the Farmland Reform Act, Article 87 of the Urban Planning Act

November 24, 1964, 64Da784 decided Nov. 24, 1964 (Supreme Court Decision 6084 decided Nov. 6, 198; Supreme Court Decision 12BB citizen 175 decided Dec. 17, 1965; Decision 5(43)16

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and four others

Yeongdeungpo Branch Court of Seoul District Court of the first instance (73Gahap349)

(1) The plaintiff's respective losing part of the original judgment against the defendants shall be revoked.

(2) Defendant 2: (a) on December 13, 1967, the registration of transfer of ownership as provided by the Seoul Civil and Criminal District Court, receipt of the registration of the Youngbu Branch Branch on December 13, 1967;

Defendant 3: (a) on September 14, 1966, the registration of transfer of ownership as provided by the above-mentioned branch office No. 25614; (b)

Defendant 4 with respect to the same real estate, the registration of transfer of ownership as the above-mentioned support registration No. 36493, Dec. 28, 1965;

Defendant 1, on April 1, 1965, with respect to the same real estate, the registration of transfer of ownership as the above-mentioned support registration No. 6868 of the same Act;

Defendant 5, on December 24, 1966, with respect to the real estate stated in the list No. 2, 1966, the registration of transfer of ownership as described in No. 39035;

Defendant 1, on April 1, 1965, performed the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration as set forth in No. 6866 of the above support registration received on April 1, 1965 with respect to the real estate stated in the attached list

(3) The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants in both the first and second instances.

The same shall apply to the order.

According to Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4 (each certified copy of the register) and 16-1 (No. 6868 on the real estate stated in the separate sheet No. 1, 1965 on April 1, 1965 as to the real estate stated in the separate sheet No. 686 on the same day, and the real estate stated in the second list No. 686 on the same day was purchased from the plaintiff 1 to the defendant 1 pursuant to Act No. 1657 (Special Measures for the Transfer of General Farmland Ownership), and the fact that the ownership transfer registration was completed in order with the remaining defendants as stated in the separate list No. 7 and No. 164 on the separate list No. 7 and No. 14 on the ground that there was no dispute between the plaintiff 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 6 on the new list of real estate purchased from the plaintiff 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 should be acknowledged as the original purport of the court below's ruling.

Therefore, the above registration, etc., made in the future of the defendants shall not be deemed to be a registration of invalidity which has a defect in its cause.

However, Defendant 1, 5 et al.'s attorney asserted that since the Plaintiff did not own land at the time of the implementation of the Farmland Reform Act, ownership belongs to the Government and the Plaintiff cannot file a claim for cancellation of this case. However, in full view of the entries in the evidence No. 20-1, 2 (Certification of Designation of Land Substitution) and the whole purport of the parties' arguments, it can be recognized that the Seoul Special Metropolitan City was incorporated into the land located in the land rearrangement zone for the implementation of the land rearrangement zone in the land rearrangement zone and disposed of the designation of the land reserved for replotting, and even until now, it can be recognized that the government did not distribute this case to anyone as farmland. Thus, it can be recognized that this case's agent's agent did not own land as the Plaintiff's non-self-owned farmland, and even if ownership belongs to the Government at the same time, it cannot be distributed to the Plaintiff due to the implementation of the Farmland Reform Act (Article 2 (1) of the Urban Planning Act). Thus, it shall not be restored to the Plaintiff due to the achievement of ownership defense of the Land, etc.

The above legal representative of defendant 1 et al. started with the above-mentioned land from March 9, 1950 and continued to occupy it with the intention of ownership owned by the above-mentioned defendant 1, and the land listed in the attached Table 2 among the above land reaches the present point of time on December 24, 1966. Thus, the defendant 5 acquired ownership due to the completion of prescription from possession for 20 years on March 8, 1970, and the land listed in the attached Table 1 list is also owned by the defendant 1, and it is not obvious that the defendant 1 succeeded to the above-mentioned land from March 9, 1950 to December 24, 1966. Since the defendant 2 succeeded to the above-mentioned land from March 9, 196 to the above-mentioned land from March 9, 196, it is not clear that the above-mentioned land was occupied by the defendant 1, non-party 1, and the defendant 2 acquired ownership due to the expiration of prescription period.

[Attachment List of Real Estate]

Judges Kim Hong (Presiding Judge)