The exclusion period of compensation claims under the Farmland Reform Act;

If a claim for compensation under the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act is not exercised within one year from the date of enforcement of the Special Measures Act under Article 11 of the Act on Special Measures for the Adjustment of Farmland Reform Projects, the period shall be the exclusion period.

Article 11 of the Act on Special Measures for the Adjustment of Farmland Reform Projects, Article 8 of the Farmland Reform Act

Supreme Court Decision 81Meu100 Decided July 28, 1981

Plaintiff 1 and 6 others, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Defendant 1 and 3 Defendants, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee

Daegu High Court Decision 79Na1040 delivered on February 18, 1981

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

The defendants' attorney's grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 3 are also examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the land of this case was originally owned by Nonparty 1, the deceased party 2, who was drafted by the implementation of the Farmland Reform Act, but was charged with it, but was used as a hospital site by requisition from the Ministry of National Defense around January 1, 1951 prior to the completion of redemption, and that the above Nonparty 2 neglected to pay the redemption payment and actually renounced it, and that the land security issued to the above Nonparty 1 was recovered, and that each registration in the name of the Defendants, including the registration in the name of Defendant 1, which was completed for the land of this case, was invalid, after the State acquired and disposed of the land of this case, and the land of this case was legally distributed to Nonparty 2 by the State due to the implementation of the Farmland Reform Act, and even if Nonparty 2 did not actually waive and complete repayment due to the above reasons, such fact alone did not lose the right to claim the transfer registration of the land of this case to the plaintiffs in light of the purport of Article 52 of the Enforcement Rule of the Farmland Reform Act.

However, according to Article 11 of the Act on Special Measures for the Adjustment of Farmland Reform Projects, a claim for compensation against farmland and facilities annexed to farmland purchased pursuant to Article 5 (2) 2 of the Farmland Reform Act shall be extinguished unless it is claimed within one year from the enforcement date of the above Act, and the above period shall be the exclusion period (see Supreme Court Decision 81Meu100, Jul. 28, 1981). Thus, the right to claim compensation for land price expires after March 13, 1969 when one year has passed from the enforcement date of the above Act. Thus, the judgment of the court below that the plaintiffs still hold the right to claim compensation for land price of this case is limited to the interpretation of the Farmland Reform Act and the Act on Special Measures for the Adjustment of Farmland Reform Projects, and therefore there is a serious violation of law against justice and equity. Therefore, the argument on this issue is justified.

Therefore, the decision of the court below without any necessity to determine the remaining grounds of appeal shall be reversed and remanded to the Daegu High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kang Jong-young (Presiding Justice)