Ownership of facilities annexed to the farmland belonging to the State and the validity of farmland disposition devolvingd by the Director-General

1. The farmland attached to the farmland owned by the owner of the farmland as farmland reverted to the Government, so long as the farmland attached to the farmland owned by the owner of the farmland was acquired as an accessory to the farmland, which belongs to the Government with the farmland attached to the farmland attached to the farmland, and the Plaintiff, who completed the repayment of the farmland allocated to the farmland, shall acquire

2.The disposal of the farmland devolving upon the Director-General, who is not an agency to dispose of the farmland devolving upon the State, shall be null and void as it has a significant and apparent defect.

Articles 2, 5, and 11 of the Farmland Reform Act

Supreme Court Decision 66Nu176 delivered on March 7, 1967 (Dakh 291; Supreme Court Decision 15Nu245 delivered on September 15, 196, Article 2(52) of the Farmland Reform Act); Supreme Court Decision 64Nu127 delivered on February 16, 1965 (Dakh 2432; Supreme Court Decision 13Nu1630 delivered on November 24, 1960; Supreme Court Decision 4293Da403 delivered on November 24, 1960 (Dakh 680 delivered on November 24, 1960; Decision 2(1627 delivered on September 30, 196)

Plaintiff

The Director-General of Gwangju City and the Director of Gwangju Regional Tax Office;

The Defendant confirmed that a lease agreement between the Defendant’s assistant intervenor and the Defendant’s assistant intervenor was null and void with respect to one of the 120 wood coagum 1, 120 pyrom mar 1,20 mar 1,20 mar 1,20 mar 30 mar mar mar 30 mar mar-2,20 mar mar 2,20 mar mar 2,34 mar mar mar mar mar mar mar.

Among all litigation costs, the part arising from the defendant's participation shall be borne by the defendant's assistant intervenor, and the remainder shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

First of all, we examine the legitimacy of the administrative litigation, and the summary of the cause of the plaintiff's main claim is that the real estate in the main text of the disposition is the real estate owned by the plaintiff, and that the defendant's disposal of the real estate to the defendant's assistant intervenor by the defendant is a significant and obvious invalidation. In such a case, the plaintiff's main claim can be filed without going through the procedure of administrative litigation without going through the procedure of litigation such as the plaintiff's appeal under Article 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 39 of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to Jurisdiction. Thus, the defendant's main claim is unlawful because the defendant's main safety defense is without merit, and the plaintiff's main claim is legitimate.

Then, there is no dispute between the parties that the Defendant entered into a lease agreement on the following merits between the Defendant and the Intervenor’s assistant. The Defendant’s agreement on the lease agreement on the 120 mara-type 10 mar-type 10 mar-type 30 mar-type 30 mar-type 20 mar-type 20 mar-type 20 mar-type 20 mar-type 1, 1 mar-type 14 mar-type 14 mar-type mar.

However, it is necessary for the Plaintiff to have acquired ownership from 1930s by claiming that the Plaintiff acquired ownership from March 194 to March 194 as the Plaintiff’s ownership since it did not conflict with No. 1 and No. 3, since the Plaintiff had established a sales contract with a redemption rate of 1,500 islands in 15 years at the request of the Plaintiff at the shipbuilding Unemployment Co., Ltd. on March 1930, and then transferred it to April of that year by the Plaintiff, and repayment of 100 islands each year from 1930 to 194, and the Plaintiff acquired ownership from 1930s, considering the fact that the Plaintiff acquired ownership from 30s from 194 to 40s at the request of the Plaintiff, it is not clear that the Plaintiff acquired ownership of 1,50 books at the time of acquisition of the above 4th books at the time of acquisition of the Plaintiff’s house and the record of acquisition of the Plaintiff’s property belonging to 2, which is the Plaintiff’s owner of the above 3rd.

Even if the Plaintiff does not do so, it is argued that the Plaintiff acquired ownership pursuant to Article 2(2) of the Farmland Reform Act. Thus, it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff’s establishment of 912 farmland located in the Plaintiff’s assertion is the farmland distributed to the Plaintiff. Thus, according to the evidence No. 8, the said Joseon Unemployment Co., Ltd. established its main office on August 6, 1906 for the purpose of agriculture and its incidental projects, etc., and its branch office in Japan is located in 3 1, 1945 (the branch office is abolished May 24, 1945). Thus, it can be recognized that the Plaintiff is a juristic person composed of all Japanese members. Considering such fact and the fact that the building and the facilities established in the above mentioned above are owned by the above company after the establishment of the 912 farmland rearrangement project and the establishment of the 1930-year farmland rearrangement project, and there is no dispute over the establishment of the 10-year farmland rearrangement project and the establishment of the 1910-year farmland rearrangement project.

Therefore, this case is obvious that the owner of the acquiring facility is a facility owned by the above company attached to a specific farmland listed in the attached list, which was owned by the above company, as stated in Article 2 (2) of the Farmland Reform Act, and if the owner of the acquiring facility is the same as the owner of the acquiring facility, the transferee shall be deemed to have transacted as a accessory to the farmland, unless there is any justifiable reason by the special group, so long as the owner of the acquiring facility is not found to have a legitimate reason, the transferee shall be deemed to have possessed the farmland as a accessory to the farmland, and as long as the use of the farmland belongs to the government as the farmland belonging to the government, it shall be deemed to have been acquired at the same time as the acquisition of the farmland belongs to the government, and the owner of each farmer, including the plaintiff, has completed the repayment of the farmland reverted to each farmer, including the plaintiff.

Therefore, even though the facility of this case is owned by each farmer including the plaintiff, it is not the disposal agency of the farmland vested with the defendant, but the lease disposition of this case between the defendant and the defendant's assistant intervenor without authority, and it is illegal without authority that the defect is significant and obvious, so it is invalid.

Therefore, for this reason, the plaintiff's claim for confirmation of the principal lawsuit is justified, and the lawsuit cost is accepted, and it is decided as per Disposition in accordance with the principle of the losing party's burden.

Judges Kim Dong-chul (Presiding Justice)