(a) Ownership at the time when the period for distribution expires, in cases where the farmland was purchased from the State as a non-self-farmland and distributed to a third party, but the third party returned it to the State and made the registration thereof;

(b) The validity of the registration where the self-owned farmland has been erroneously disposed of as farmland for cultivation and has been purchased from the State and the registration of preservation of ownership has been made to the State;

C. Whether it is possible to acquire the statute of limitations on the land of the State, where the purchase by the State was cancelled but it is still registered as a state-owned (negative)

A. In accordance with Article 5 subparagraph 2 of the Farmland Reform Act, it should be deemed that the government purchased farmland on the condition that it will not be distributed in the future under the condition that it would not be acquired on the condition that it will not be distributed in the future. Even if already distributed farmland, it should be registered on the state-owned land pursuant to Article 2 (1) of the Act on Special Measures for the Adjustment of Farmland Reform Projects returned to the Government pursuant to Article 19 (1) of the same Act, and thereafter, if the farmland is not distributed again pursuant to Article 2 (3) of the same Act within the period of Article 2 (2) of the same Act (from March 13, 1968, the implementer of the same Act, until 196), the purchase is cancelled and the purchase shall be returned to the ownership of the original owner.

B. In a case where the land A owned was a non-self-owned farmland even though it was a non-self-owned farmland at the time when the Farmland Reform Act was effective, and as a result, it was erroneously disposed of as farmland subject to distribution, and the registration of preservation of ownership has been made in the name of the State, the registration of preservation is also a registration of invalidation lacking in the cause, barring special circumstances.

C. According to the Act on Special Measures for the Adjustment of Farmland, even if farmland registered as a state-owned one is farmland, other than farmland distributed by the prescribed provisions, has passed at the same time (one year from the enforcement date of the above Act) and at the same time, the purchase measures by the State were cancelled and returned to the original owner as a matter of course, so even if the State occupies the above land, such possession cannot be deemed as possession which has the intention to own due to the nature of the title, and therefore, the prescriptive acquisition cannot be asserted.

Article 245 of the Civil Act, Article 2 of the Act on Special Measures for Adjustment of Farmland Reform Projects

1. Supreme Court Decision 81Da100 Decided July 28, 1981 (No. 673No. 141 Decided December 8, 1981), Supreme Court Decision 81Da782, 81Meu141 Decided December 8, 1981 (No. 15), Article 2(15)293 of the Act on Special Measures for the Adjustment of Special Farmland Reform Projects (No. 673No141)

Korean Buddhist Cho Jae-kak Scalk's yarn

Korea

1. On May 29, 1959, the Defendant completed the registration procedure for cancellation of each registration of ownership preservation, which was completed under Article 6938 of the receipt of the registry office of Suwon District Court on May 29, 1959 with respect to the real estate stated in the attached list Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4, with respect to the Plaintiff, under Article 383 of the receipt of the registration office of Suwon District Court on May 29, 195, and under Article 383 of the receipt of the same registry office on the same day on October 27, 1961 with respect to the six parts of the attached list No. 6 of the same list. 10324, Nov. 13, 1

2. It is confirmed that the real estate stated in subparagraphs 1 through 7 of the same list is owned by the plaintiff.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Determination as to a claim for the land A in the attached list Nos. 1 to 4 and 6

The above land owned by the plaintiff was purchased from the defendant as non-self-owned farmland at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, and the land listed in the first part is purchased to the non-party Kim Jong-so; the land listed in the second part is transferred to the non-party Kim Jong-sung; the land listed in the sixth part is distributed to the non-party Kim Jong-Un; the above non-party renounced the distribution of the above land and returned it to the defendant on February 3, 1959, and the above non-party returned it to the defendant, and the defendant made a registration of preservation of ownership, such as the written order, to the above land in its name; the fact that the above land was not distributed until the present time is not disputed between the parties.

It is essential to view that the government's purchase of non-self-owned farmland under Article 5 subparagraph 2 of the Farmland Reform Act was acquired on the condition that it will not be distributed in the future, and even if already distributed farmland, farmland returned to the government under Article 19 (1) of the same Act shall be registered as a state-owned property pursuant to Article 2 (1) of the Act on Special Measures for the Adjustment of Farmland Reform Projects. However, if such farmland thereafter is not distributed again pursuant to Article 2 (3) of the same Act within the period under Article 2 (2) of the same Act (from March 13, 1968, the enforcement date of the same Act), the purchase period has expired at the same time, and the purchase is cancelled and shall be reverted to the original owner without any further proceeding (see Supreme Court Decisions 81Meu100, July 28, 1981; 81Da17814, Dec. 8, 1981; 2008Da1814, each of the above shares of the above land was distributed to the defendant.

2. Determination on the claim for the land listed in the attached Tables 5 and 7

Although the land owned by the plaintiff was the plaintiff's own farmland at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, the fact that the farmland subject to distribution as non-self-owned farmland was purchased from the State and the registration of preservation of ownership was made in the name of the defendant as stated in the disposition was not disputed between the parties. Thus, the above registration of preservation of ownership is an invalid registration lacking the cause, unless there is any special circumstance.

3. The defendant has completed each registration of preservation of ownership on each of the above lands and continued possession and management on each of the above lands at the will of its owner. Thus, the above lands listed in Articles 1 through 4 more than 10 years have passed since the registration of preservation of ownership was completed on May 28, 1969, and each of the above lands was owned by the defendant upon completion of the prescriptive prescription on October 26, 1971. However, as seen above, according to the Act on Special Measures for the Adjustment of Farmland, even if the farmland is registered as a state-owned state-owned land, it is proved that the above lands were owned by the defendant, but at the same time, after the lapse of a certain period (one year from the date of enforcement of the law), the purchase by the State was cancelled and the original owner would naturally be returned to the original owner. Thus, even if the defendant occupies the above lands, such possession cannot be viewed as possession by the nature of the title, and therefore, the defendant's defense of prescriptive prescription is groundless.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, each registration of preservation of ownership in the original text made under the name of the defendant is null and void, and the defendant has a duty to cancel the above registration, and the plaintiff has a legal interest in seeking confirmation of ownership of the land in this case. Thus, the plaintiff's claim seeking cancellation of the above registration and confirmation of ownership of the land in this case is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the defendant who has lost the lawsuit.

Judges Kim Jong-il (Presiding Judge)