The effects of government purchase on over 600 square meters at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act

The land of this case (1,185 square meters) corresponds to the area above the land stipulated in Article 6 subparagraph 7 of the Farmland Reform Act, and the 600 square meters specified by the plaintiff, the owner of the above land, among 1,185 square meters, was naturally excluded from the government purchase to safeguard one grave, and the remaining 585 square meters was purchased by the government for distribution. Thus, the disposition to distribute all the 1,185 square meters to the defendant of the above land to the 600 square meters specified by the owner of the above land is null and void.

Article 6 of the Farmland Reform Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

Daejeon District Court of Daejeon District Court (64Gahap90 delivered on April 1, 200)

Supreme Court Decision 65Da1980 Delivered on December 7, 1965

1. Revocation of the original judgment;

2. The defendant will implement the procedure for cancellation registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of the completion of redemption on December 31, 1955, as follows: (a) the size of the part on the ship connecting each point of 1,123 of the [Attachment Map], Da, Da, Ma, Ma, Ba, Ka, Ka, Ka, Kata, and Ga, which is 600 square meters in the size of the ship connected to the plaintiff in combination with Jin-gun, Jin-gun, the Daejeon District Court of Daejeon, 1958, No. 3154, August 29, 195.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The plaintiff sought a judgment with the same contents as the disposition.

The plaintiff revoked the original judgment and sought a judgment with the same content as the disposition.

The defendant was distributed in farmland by way of the distribution of tin-do 841,185 square meters (after 841-1, 123, 841-2, 62 square meters) in Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, and there is no dispute between the parties as to the facts for which the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the defendant has been made as stated in the above order.

However, since the plaintiff asserts that the above land is the above land owned by the plaintiff and the defendant denies it, considering the whole purport of the parties' arguments on the testimony and testimony of the non-party 1 and 2 of the non-party 3 after the first return of the court below's testimony, the land of this case is an existing land where non-party 2 did not collect small charges for the purpose of protecting one grave (joint burial) for about 20 years before the plaintiff's 7 father's 7 father's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's 5 years before the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, the above 5 years' son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's 1, 500's son's 5's son's Ga.

Although the Defendant asserts that the instant land was purchased from the government because it did not follow the prescribed procedure of application as provided by the Enforcement Rule of the Agricultural Act even if it was above the old day, it cannot be interpreted that the instant land was purchased from the government. However, as seen earlier, since the instant land was an existing land where no tenant fee was collected from the government for the purpose of protecting the grave, it is naturally excluded from the purchase of the farmland within two parts per grave, it cannot be interpreted that the said land was subject to the government purchase on the ground that it did not follow the prescribed procedure of the Defendant’s assertion.

In addition, since the defendant had already moved to another place in 4,5 years ago, the defendant argued that the land of this case is not an overland under the Farmland Reform Act, but only stated that the existing land within the scope stipulated in Article 6 (1) 7 of the Agricultural and Fishing Villages Act shall not be purchased by the government under the same Act, and there is no provision that the government will purchase the land which was recognized as the overland of the grave in case the graves were moved to another place after the enforcement of the same Act, or the graves themselves become lost due to cremation. (The provision on the purchase of farmland of the Farmland Reform Act is a temporary period) Even if the facts were found to have been removed as alleged by the defendant after the enforcement of the same Act, the effect excluded from the above purchase shall not affect.

Therefore, the plaintiff's main claim for the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration in the name of the defendant in relation to the above 600 square meters is justified and accepted. Since the original judgment differs from the purport of the original judgment, the plaintiff's appeal shall be accepted, and the whole costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Han Man-soo (Presiding Judge)