logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1963. 2. 28. 선고 63다14 판결
[부동산소유권이전등기말소][집11(1)민,162]
Main Issues

Where a replotting disposition is completed after farmland designated as reserved land for replotting has been allocated pursuant to the Farmland Reform Act, the issue of attribution of the farmland ownership

Summary of Judgment

If a person who has acquired the right to use and benefit from a land in accordance with a land substitution plan acquires the right to use and benefit from the land and has been distributed the land as farmland, the person who has acquired the right to use and benefit from the land shall acquire the ownership

Plaintiff-Appellee

Mag-rosium

Defendant-Appellant

Corporation of Korea

Judgment of the lower court

Seoul District Court Decision 62Na721 delivered on December 21, 1962, 200

Text

The appeal shall be dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

Reasons

As to the ground of appeal by the defendant representative

According to the facts established by the original judgment, the plaintiff received a distribution of the original land as a farmer of the main land (588-9) under Article 11 subparagraph 1 of the Farmland Reform Act, and the motive of the plaintiff's cultivation of the present land was made by Japanese people who acquired the right to use and profit from the present land in accordance with the replotting plan, so long as the plaintiff received a distribution of the present land, it is reasonable to interpret that the land which the plaintiff acquired in a conclusive manner is the land of this case, and even if a replotting disposition in accordance with the replotting plan is completed, any change may not occur in the object of ownership acquired by distribution, as provided by the Farmland Reform Act, even if a replotting disposition in accordance with the replotting plan has been completed, it is reasonable to interpret that the distribution in the Farmland Reform Act as to the present land (588-9) is null and void. Therefore, all of the arguments are without merit.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges pursuant to Article 400 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Lee Jin-chul (Presiding Judge)

arrow
본문참조조문
기타문서