A right to distributed farmland by the members of a farm household which is a farming unit;

The farmland distributed under the Farmland Reform Act is naturally cultivated by the representative of a farmer who is composed of a family member who is jointly engaged in farming at the same place and is jointly cultivated with the said member, and if the farmer is a member of a farm household who is a farming unit, he/she has the right to cultivate the allocated farmland jointly with other members and to maintain the livelihood

Article 11 of the Farmland Reform Act, Article 15 of the Farmland Reform Act

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and one other

Msan District Court (83 Gohap574)

The original judgment shall be revoked.

All of the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants is dismissed.

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

The Defendants shall deliver to the Plaintiff 134 square meters prior to the Chungcheong City (detailed number omitted) and 69 square meters prior to the same (number omitted).

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendants and a provisional execution declaration.

The same shall apply to the order.

In full view of the whole purport of the pleadings in Gap evidence Nos. 1-1 and 2 (each copy of the register) without dispute over the establishment, the fact that the plaintiff, the non-party 2, the non-party 3, and the non-party 4 were possessed by the defendant as to the farmland in the purport of the claim (hereinafter in this case) as to the farmland in question (hereinafter in this case) on Nov. 11, 1975 by the deceased non-party 1, as to No. 419 of the Masan District Court No. 419 of Feb. 22, 1958 and No. 3091 of the same support received on Nov. 18, 1958, the transfer registration for ownership was made on the ground of the completion of repayment on Dec. 31, 1954, and thereafter, the plaintiff, the non-party 2, the non-party 4, and the non-party 4 had no different ownership transfer registration as to each share on inheritance on Nov. 1, 1973.

However, the Plaintiff is the cause of the instant claim, and the Defendants initially occupied and cultivated the farmland after being entrusted with the cultivation management by the deceased Nonparty 1, the deceased Nonparty 1, the Plaintiff, who was a co-owner, as the source of the deceased, claimed that the commission contract for the cultivation management with the Defendants was terminated as a part of the preservation act, and that the Defendants are obliged to deliver the instant farmland to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, upon the death of Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 5’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 6’s non-party 1’s non-party 6’s non-party 1’s non-party 6’s non-party 1’s non-party 6’s non-party 1’s non-party 6’s non-party 1’s non-party 6’s non-party 1’s non-party 6’s non-party 1’s non-party 6’s non-party 1’s non-party 6’s non-party 1’s non-party 6’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 6’s non-party 1’s non-party 6’s non-party 1’s non-party 6’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 5’s non-party 1’s non-party 6’s.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge whether the deceased non-party 1 occupied the farmland of this case in accordance with an entrustment contract to the effect that, on November 1, 1968, the deceased non-party 1 transferred the farmland together with the plaintiff, his wife, his mother and her mother so that the deceased wishes, at any time, the non-party 1 may waive his cultivation and deliver the farmland to the deceased to the non-party.

In addition, according to the purport of Article 11 of the Farmland Reform Act, it can be known that farmland distribution is made up in the unit of a farm household, and according to Article 15 of the above Act, it is stipulated that farmland distributed is registered in the name of the representative of the farm household and inherited as additional inheritance. In light of Article 15 of the above Act, if the representative of the farm household composed of the family members engaged in farming jointly at the same place and jointly cultivated it with the members of the farm household as a unit of farming, it is reasonable to view that the owner of the farmland naturally has the right to cultivate distributed farmland jointly with other members and maintain the livelihood with income. The farmland in this case is seen above, although the deceased non-party 1 acquired the ownership of the non-party 5, who is the owner of the land directly or directly, as the representative of the farm household, and the plaintiff acquired the ownership of the land in the name of his lineal descendant as the owner of the above deceased, and the defendants were jointly cultivated with the defendant's right to cultivate the farmland in this case as the owner or the plaintiff's owner's right to cultivate.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on the premise that such entrustment contract was concluded between the defendants and the non-party 1 is without merit, and in this case where the defendants occupied and cultivated the farmland of this case in the capacity of family members of the farm household as above, the plaintiff and the other members of the above farm household, including the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances such as obstructing the joint cultivation of the farmland of this case, hindering the joint cultivation of the farmland of this case, making contributions, etc., and the non-party 1's heir, including the plaintiff, became the owner of the farmland of this case after inheritance of the farmland of this case in the name of non-party 1, the plaintiff and the non-party 1's heir cannot seek a request for a request for the transfer of the farmland of this case to the plaintiff et al. by unilaterally deprived the defendants' right

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit, and it is dismissed. Since the original judgment is unfair with different conclusions, it is dismissed. All of the plaintiff's claim of this case against the defendants is dismissed, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost all of the first and second trials. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Jeon Soo-young (Presiding Judge)