The validity of an act of disposal prior to the completion of the repayment of farmland distributed under the Farmland Reform Act.

With respect to farmland distributed under the Farmland Reform Act, it shall not be handed over to the purchaser of the farmland by means of sale, donation, and all other acts of disposal before the repayment is completed, and it shall be interpreted as null and void by law.

Article 16 of the Farmland Reform Act

63Da994 decided Jun. 2, 1964 (Supreme Court Decision 6555 decided Jun. 27, 1957; Supreme Court Decision 12 ①158 decided Jun. 16, 196; Decision 16(11)1671 decided Jun. 2, 1964

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and one other

Jeonju District Court of the first instance (65 Ghana1468)

Each appeal is dismissed.

Of the appeal costs, the part arising between the plaintiff and the defendant Republic of Korea shall be borne by the plaintiff and the part arising between the defendant 1 shall be borne by each party.

Defendant 1: (a) On February 16, 1963, the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration, which was received from the Jeonju District Court No. 2,122 on February 16, 1963; (b) on April 26, 1961, on April 209, as the above court No. 3,541 on April 26, 1961, as the above court No. 3,541 on April 26, 1961, the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration, which was received from the Jeonju District Court No. 2,122 on April 16, 1963

Defendant Republic of Korea shall implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration against the Plaintiff on December 30, 1959 with respect to the two parcels of land mentioned above.

Litigation Costs shall be borne by the defendants.

The plaintiff's appeal purport and the part against the plaintiff shall be revoked.

Defendant 1, 4.26, in the case of the Jeonju-gun, the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer as the receipt of the registration of the Jeonju District Court No. 3,541 on April 26, 196, and the defendant Republic of Korea shall implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer registration as to the land mentioned above against the plaintiff on December 30, 1959, respectively.

Litigation Costs shall be borne by the Defendants in both the first and second instances.

The purport of Defendant 1’s appeal, the part against the Defendant in the original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by all the plaintiffs of the first and second instances.

On February 16, 1963, the previous Jeju District Court No. 2,122, which was received from the defendant 1 on February 16, 1963 as to 764-1 dry field No. 904 of Won-ri, Jeonbuk-gun, the fact that the transfer of ownership was made in the name of defendant 1 on April 26, 1961 as to 623 of the above 667 and 191 of the above 191 as to 209 of the above court registration No. 3,541 on April 26, 1961 as to 3, 195, and the fact that the transfer of ownership was made in the name of defendant 1 on December 30, 1959 was not disputed between the parties. According to the court below's decision and the testimony of the non-party 2, the plaintiff and the non-party 1 as a single lineal descendant or a legal person, and the plaintiff cannot reverse the above facts without any evidence.

First, in full view of the plaintiff's main claim of dry field 904, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence Nos. 5 without dispute about establishment, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence Nos. 2 and non-party No. 3's testimony, the dry field was registered for transfer of ownership on the ground of sale on Nov. 20, 1947 in the name of non-party No. 4 on March 30, 1948, and the non-party No. 1 died on Oct. 19, 1960 as recognized in the former part. The defendant No. 1 can be acknowledged as being the fact that the registration of transfer of ownership under defendant No. 1's name was completed under his own name on Feb. 16, 1963, and there is no other evidence to reverse the above recognition. Thus, it is reasonable to interpret that the plaintiff's ownership transfer registration under the above defendant No. 1's name was unilaterally prepared and invalid after the death of non-party No. 1. 3. 2.

Defendant 1’s attorney and the deceased non-party 1’s husband living together for the past 30 years until the Dong died. The above dry field was registered under the name of non-party 1, but the Dong was owned by the defendant as a donation of ownership from his pro-Japanese, but only the name was registered under the trust with the non-party 1. However, although the non-party 2’s testimony as shown in this argument is difficult to believe, and it is not evidence to prove that the above dry field was originally trusted to the above non-party as the defendant’s ownership, even if considering the defendant’s whole evidence, it is difficult to find that the above dry field was a trust with the above non-party as the defendant’s ownership, and thus, this argument based on the premise that the above dry field was entrusted under the name of the defendant is unfair, without examining any other points. Thus,

Then, the plaintiff's assertion that the non-party 1 purchased the above 2 piece of farmland from the deceased non-party 2 at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act and paid in full on December 30, 1959. Thus, although the plaintiff alleged that the ownership was inherited due to the death of Dong, it cannot be delivered to the purchaser by means of sale, donation, and all other disposal acts, and it cannot be interpreted as null and void by law because the plaintiff's assertion that the non-party 2 purchased the above 2 piece of farmland from the non-party 1 and the non-party 2's statement in the court below's 1 and 2's testimony cannot be acknowledged as being genuine by recognizing the formation of the public portion of the above 1 and 5's statement in the court below because the non-party 1 and the non-party 2's statement in the above 23 piece of farmland were not the non-party 5's farmland distribution and it cannot be acknowledged that the non-party 1 purchased the above 209 square witness's statement before the sale of farmland.

If so, among the plaintiff's main claim, the plaintiff's claim on the procedure for cancellation registration of ownership transfer registration with respect to 764-1 dry field 904 of Won-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri 667, and the claim on the procedure for cancellation registration of ownership transfer registration due to the completion of repayment to 623 of the above 667-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri- 209, and the claim on the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer due to the completion of repayment to the defendant's Republic of Korea against the above 2-mentioned parcels is without merit. The judgment of the court below

Judges Kim Dong-chul (Presiding Justice)