Where a farmland recipient submits an application for waiver of distributed farmland to a prop for the purpose of returning it to the prop, whether the farmland cultivation right belongs to

Since farmland which is not self-filled is purchased from the State simultaneously with the implementation of the Farmland Reform Act, a person who has not completed the repayment may return all or part of distributed farmland to the State, but it cannot be returned to the prop. Therefore, even if he/she submitted an application for waiver of distributed farmland to the prop in order to return distributed farmland to the prop, it cannot be deemed that he/she lost the right to cultivate distributed farmland.

Articles 5 and 11 of the Farmland Reform Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The right to cultivate Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 64-2 and the previous 948-2 shall be confirmed to be the plaintiff.

The total cost of litigation shall be borne by the defendant.

The plaintiff's legal representative sought a ruling of 1 and 2. The plaintiff's legal representative from 4275 to 1275 to 200 to 3.25 to 4.25 to 200 to 3.5 to 4.5 to 1, the plaintiff's right to 30 to 30,000 to 4.5 to 4.5 to 4.5 to 1, the plaintiff's right to 1 to 3.5 to 3.5 to 4.5 to 4.5 to 4.5 to 1, the plaintiff's right to 30,00 to 30,00 to 4.5 to 1, the plaintiff's right to 30,000 to 1,00 to 1,00 to 3.4, the plaintiff's right to 30,000 to 1,000 to 1,000 won to 20,000 won to 1,000 won to 3.

Next, since there is no objection about distribution after the completion of partial repayment after the plaintiff was distributed, the plaintiff's lawsuit under the Farmland Reform Act is unnecessary and reasonable, and there is no ground for administrative litigation, and the farmland is currently cultivated by the plaintiff and proved that there is no ground for administrative litigation, Gap evidence 1, 2-1 through 3, 3, 4, 5-1 through 3, 5-6, and 6 shall be submitted and the testimony of non-party 1 is invoked by non-party 1, the non-party 2's summons shall be sought at the trial of the court below, and the evidence Nos. 1 through 4 shall be admitted only to each official, and the evidence Nos. 9 shall be admitted to the establishment of the evidence Nos. 7-1, 2, 8-1, 5, 6, and 10-10 shall be denied.

The defendant's legal representative is dismissed. This case's litigation cost is dismissed. The defendant's legal representative sought a judgment that the plaintiff should bear the plaintiff's expenses, and the defendant's waiver of distributed farmland was forged and shipped to the Gu office as the plaintiff's main defense. Thus, the State is a loss of the plaintiff's right to cultivate and the defendant's right to cultivate are acquired by applying Article 34 and Article 11 (1) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act. Thus, this matter is an interested party who has an objection to the fact that the plaintiff's application for return of forgery is regarded as a true return application. Thus, the plaintiff's objection to the fact that the plaintiff's waiver of farmland was forged in the Black Gungdong Farmland Committee, which was located at the location of July 24, 428, and the defendant's appeal against this decision was dismissed on October 15, 200, and the decision of this court's rejection of the plaintiff's appeal can be fully acquired by the defendant's return of the above farmland under the Farmland Reform Act.

Furthermore, since the defendant does not automatically acquire the right to cultivate abandoned farmland due to the plaintiff's act of returning farmland, but the state's returned farmland is an administrative disposition, which is the permission of return to farming to which Article 34 (1) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act applies, and thus the defendant acquires the right to cultivate, the civil court cannot confirm the plaintiff's right to cultivate before the cancellation or invalidation of the harmful administrative disposition. Thus, the plaintiff's lawsuit for cancellation of administrative disposition is illegal.

The following answer is that the farmland as the plaintiff originally owned by the defendant and received farmland distribution in accordance with the implementation of the Farmland Reform Act while the plaintiff was found to be the owner of the farmland. In other words, there is no fact that the defendant received the seal from the plaintiff, and there is no fact that the defendant has forged the source of the application for the renunciation of the farmland distribution in the name of the plaintiff.

As the Plaintiff submitted the application for the renunciation of distributed farmland to the Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office on June 23, 4288, a short-term period of 4287 March 5, 4287, to the Yeongdeungpo-gu Office, Yeongdeungpo-gu Office, Seoul Metropolitan Government, the right to cultivate was naturally lost, and the Plaintiff renounced to return to the prop in the reason for the renunciation, but this is not a conditional renunciation, nor a return to the prop.

On April 9, 4289, the defendant filed an application for self-certification of the renounced farmland for one year in which the plaintiff had received the application for renunciation of farmland from the plaintiff on April 9, 4289 and filed an application for self-certification of the renounced farmland on May 13, 4290, and thus, the defendant's right to cultivate farmland was not naturally returned due to the plaintiff's renunciation of farmland. Thus, since the plaintiff's right to cultivate farmland was not naturally returned to the defendant on May 13, 429, since the plaintiff's right to cultivate farmland was not a matter of course due to the plaintiff's renunciation of farmland, the plaintiff's right to cultivate farmland is unjust and cannot be returned to the defendant, the plaintiff's request for principal lawsuit is made, and with the statement that it cannot be complied with, the evidence Nos. 1 through 6, 7-1, 8-1, 4, 9, 10, and 5-2, and 5-2, 9, and the statement No. 1, 6, 4, respectively.

First, according to the defendant's main defense of safety, the plaintiff is a receiver of the farmland in this case, and even if the defendant submitted a forged and submitted the plaintiff's application for waiver of distributed farmland under the plaintiff's name to return the farmland to the plaintiff, the plaintiff cannot return the distributed farmland to the prop. Thus, the plaintiff's right to cultivate the farmland is obvious that the plaintiff has the right to cultivate the farmland, and the defendant's right to cultivate the farmland is disputed with the right to cultivate the farmland, and thus the defendant's right to seek confirmation can be seen as the purport of seeking confirmation. Thus, the defendant's defense is not the objection about the distribution of farmland, and the administrative disposition made a decision to return the farmland to the defendant was illegal, and the plaintiff's main farmland in the plaintiff's main case was originally owned by the defendant, and the plaintiff could have distributed the farmland according to the implementation of the Farmland Reform Act, and there is no dispute between the parties concerned.

The plaintiff asserted that the defendant forged the application for the waiver of distributed farmland under the name of the plaintiff and submitted it to the head of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, but there is no other data to authorize the withdrawal, and it is clear that the plaintiff in the application for the waiver of distributed farmland under the name of the plaintiff was renounced to return the farmland to the prop. Thus, since farmland which is not self-defilled was purchased at the same time as the implementation of the Farmland Reform Act, the distribution of farmland can be returned to the State in whole or in part, but the distribution of farmland can not be returned to the distributed farmland, and even if the plaintiff submitted the application for the waiver of distributed farmland, it cannot be said that the plaintiff lost the right to cultivate farmland.

Therefore, the plaintiff's main claim for confirmation of farmland in this case is reasonable, and thus, the plaintiff's main claim for confirmation of farmland in this case should be allowed. However, the original judgment with different conclusions should be revoked because it is unfair, so it should be revoked. It is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 386, 89, and 96 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judges Park Jae-won (Presiding Judge)