Application of the Farmland Reform Act to the land for which urban planning has been implemented;

Land within the urban planning zone, which is subject to the facility under Article 2 of the former Urban Planning Act, is excluded from the application of the Farmland Reform Act, and until then the distribution has not been confirmed, shall be returned to the plaintiff due to the fulfillment of the cancellation condition

Article 11 of the Farmland Reform Act, Articles 2 and 49 of the Urban Planning Act (Law No. 1912)

Supreme Court Decision 66Da2567 delivered on June 20, 1967 (Supreme Court Decision 15Du2567 delivered on April 29, 1967, Article 32(17)17 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act, Article 49(4) of the former Urban Planning Act, Article 1805 Decided April 29, 1965

Plaintiff

Korea

Seoul and Criminal District Court Incheon (69A294) in the first instance trial.

The appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

On August 22, 1966, the defendant implemented the procedure for the cancellation registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of purchase on March 25, 1950, the procedure for the registration of cancellation of transfer of ownership on the ground of receipt of the registration of support from the Seoul Civil and Criminal District Court Incheon District Court Incheon on August 22, 1966 for the plaintiff 182, Yongsan-dong, Incheon City.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

1. As to the main defense

The defendant litigation performer asserts that the main lawsuit shall be dismissed because it was filed after the expiration of the period of filing a lawsuit under Article 12 of the Act on Special Measures for the Adjustment of Farmland Reform Projects. The plaintiff's main claim is not a lawsuit for which there is an objection due to the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act and the Act on Special Measures for the Adjustment of Farmland Reform Projects under Article 12 of the same Act, and therefore there is no ground to apply the main defense of the above Act.

2. As to the merits

Comprehensively taking account of the whole purport of the parties' arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (the certified copy of the register and the certificate of designation of reserved land for replotting), each of the entries in the purport of the claim was owned by the non-party to the original network. However, since the farmland reform Act was enacted, the land was sold to the State by Article 5 of the same Act, and the ownership transfer registration was made on the ground thereof was made under the name of the defendant, but the farmland distribution was not yet implemented, the land in January 27, 1968 can be recognized that it was incorporated into the Incheon Metropolitan City Section for the land readjustment project between Incheon and Incheon, and no other evidence exists.

Therefore, this case's land is excluded from the application of the Farmland Reform Act under Article 49 of the Urban Planning Act (the defendant's performer asserts that since the above urban planning project has not yet become final and conclusive, the application of the Farmland Reform Act shall not be excluded, but once of the land incorporated into the urban planning zone, regardless of whether the urban planning project is expanded or not, the above assertion is not applicable, so the farmland Reform Act cannot be applied. The above assertion is groundless). Since the land becomes impossible to distribute farmland under the Farmland Reform Act, the sale of the land to the government of the non-self-employed farmland under the Farmland Reform Act is the condition that the farmland should not be distributed, so the sale to the government of this case's land becomes invalid due to the fulfillment of the above cancellation condition, and the ownership of this case's land was returned to the non-party who is the original owner.

Therefore, the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant against the land in this case is due to the registration of nullity of cause. Meanwhile, according to the records of No. 3-1, 2 (No. 3-2) without dispute over the establishment, the non-party died on March 5, 1951 and the plaintiff, his/her son, can recognize the fact that he/she succeeded to the ownership of the land in this case. Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant for the registration of cancellation of transfer of ownership in his/her name against the defendant is justified, and the judgment of the court below is just, and the appeal is without merit, and it is so dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 89 and 95 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation costs

Judges Kim Tae-tae (Presiding Judge)