Where farmland which is a State property has been distributed without taking over the procedure, the validity of distribution disposition;

The distribution of farmland which is a state-owned administrative property shall be null and void unless the transfer procedure of the Minister of Finance and Economy is followed, and it shall not be valid to have the ratification of the Minister of Finance and Economy after the distribution.

Article 10 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act

Supreme Court Decision 67Da2586, 2587, 2588 decided Feb. 20, 1968 (Supreme Court Decision 1020Da1020 decided Apr. 11, 1972) (Supreme Court Decision 72Da240 decided Apr. 11, 1972

The State

Defendant 1 and four others

Busan District Court (69Ga1144)

(1) The part against Defendant 2 in the original judgment shall be revoked.

(2) 피고 2는 별지 제9목록 부동산중 별지도면표시 (ㄱ) (ㄴ) (ㄷ) (ㄹ) (ㅁ) (ㅂ) (ㅅ) (ㅇ) (ㅍ) (ㅎ) (ㄷ′) (ㄴ′) (ㄱ′) (ㅈ) (ㅊ) (ㅋ) (ㅌ) (ㄱ)의 각 점을 연결한 선내부분 108평을 제외한 나머지 567평에 관하여 부산지방법원 부산진등기소 1960.8.25. 접수 제5331호로서 1960.6.15. 매매를 원인으로 한 소유권이전등기의 말소등기절차를 이행하라

(3) The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendant 2 and the defendant et al.'s appeal (excluding the defendant 2) are dismissed.

(4) Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising from the appeal by the defendant et al. (excluding the defendant 2) shall be borne by the defendant et al., and the costs of lawsuit by the plaintiff and the defendant 2 as to real estate in the annexed Table 9 attached between the plaintiff and the defendant 2 shall be divided, and one of them shall be borne by the plaintiff and the

(1) Defendant 1 was received on January 29, 1964 from the Busan District Court of Dong Office of 1964, which was received on January 28, 1964 and was subject to sale on January 28, 1964, and received on January 29, 1964 as No. 851 of the same registry office with respect to the real estate on the attached list No. 2, which was subject to sale on January 28, 1964, and was subject to sale on September 24, 1965, No. 19102 of the same registry office with respect to the real estate on the attached list No. 3, which was subject to sale on May 21,

(2) As No. 2831 of the same registry office with respect to the real estate in the annexed sheet Nos. 1 and 2, which was received on Mar. 4, 1966, for sale and purchase on Mar. 2, 1966, the registration of transfer of ownership by reason of sale on May 31, 1968, as No. 14826 of the same registry office with respect to the real estate in the annexed sheet No. 3, which was received on Sep. 15, 1967, for sale and purchase on Sep. 14, 1967, which was received on Sep. 23, 1968 by the same registry office with respect to the real estate in the annexed list No. 4, which was received on Sep. 21, 1968, for sale and purchase on Sep. 21, 1968, which was received on June 10, 1968.

(3) On January 19, 1968, the registration of the creation of a superficies on January 18, 1968, which was received as of January 19, 1968 as of January 19, 1968; and the registration of the establishment of a superficies on January 19, 1968, which was received as of January 703, 1968; and which was based on the date of establishing a superficies.

(4) Defendant 5 is the same registry office of June 26, 1968, No. 14089, which was received on June 26, 1968, and the transfer of ownership on June 25, 1968.

(5) Defendant 2, as the same registry office received on August 25, 1960 as to the real estate in the attached list No. 5331, which was received on August 25, 1960, performed the registration procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration due to sale on June 15, 1960, and sought a judgment against Defendant 2 in the same manner as the Disposition No. 2, which was ordered to be borne by Defendant

The plaintiff is seeking the revocation of the part against the plaintiff among the original judgment and a judgment identical with that of the claim in paragraph (5), and the revocation of the original judgment and the dismissal of the plaintiff's claim in relation to each part of defendant 1, 3, 4 banks, and 5.

(1) First, we examine the appeal part of the defendant et al. (excluding the defendant 2).

With respect to the real estate listed in the attached list Nos. 1 and 4 through 8, the first instance court shall have two defendants with respect to the real estate listed in the attached list No. 2, and with respect to the real estate listed in the attached list No. 3, the fact that the registration of ownership transfer due to the completion of repayment has been completed in the name of each defendant, etc., such as the defendant, etc., before the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of the defendant, etc., with respect to the real estate listed in the attached list No. 2, with the non-party 1, 2, and 3, etc., and the fact that the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of the defendant, etc., as stated in the purport of the claim is without dispute between the parties. Although the real estate was a state-owned administrative property and was not distributed in the state at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, the registration under the name of the defendant, etc., was completed by forging the relevant document and was completed under the name of the defendant, etc., and thus,

In addition, the plaintiff asserts that there was no transfer procedure from the Minister of Finance and Economy under Article 10 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act to the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry, so that the transfer of farmland to the above real estate was null and void, and all of the registrations achieved therefrom should be cancelled without validity. Thus, according to the statements and testimony of Gap 1-1 through 8, Gap 1-4, non-party 4, 5, and 6's testimony without dispute over the establishment, and Gap 2-1 to 3, the above real estate was purchased in order to use the above real estate as a site for the same Vice Minister of Agriculture and Forestry at the time of March 20, 1945, and the above real estate was managed as a state-owned administrative property before and after the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, and there is no counter-proof to the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act to dispose of farmland to be distributed to the non-party 1, etc., and the above transfer of farmland to the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry without any dispute over the distribution procedure.

Although the defendant et al. did not take over the above real estate at the time of the disposition of distribution, since the State Property Act was enacted on November 28, 1965, which was enacted on November 28, 1965 after the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, the above real estate shall not be deemed the State farmland at the time of the disposition of distribution, and even if not, since the Minister of Finance and Economy ratified the above disposition of distribution after the disposition of distribution and takes the procedure of transfer later, the disposition of distribution is valid. Thus, the current state Property Act was amended, and it was enforced without the state property prior to the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, and the defendant et al.'s assertion about this issue is without merit. In full view of the statement of evidence in the above 3,4,6,7,8,12 and the whole purport of the above witness and the parties' arguments, it is recognized that the state's disposition of distribution cannot be cancelled after the completion of the procedure of distribution distribution to the land without the consent of the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry.

Therefore, the above assertion by the defendant is groundless.

(2) The plaintiff's decision as to the appeal against the defendant 2 shall be made. The plaintiff's decision as to the 876-5 site in Busan Dong-dong 876-5 site in the attached list No. 9 shall be revoked on the ground that the whole part was distributed to the defendant 7 in the first instance court without taking over the procedure, and that the registration of transfer such as the entry in the purport of the claim in the defendant's name has been made. The plaintiff's decision as to the 84 site in the attached list No. 9 shall be revoked on the ground that the defendant 1-9, Eul 13-9, 11, 12-3, 15-1, 15-1, 15-1, 4-1, 15-1, 15-1, 15- 3, 16-1, 12-1, 3, 87, 87-1, 27, 87-17, 87-1, 76.

576 of the above 684, excluding 108, 576, excluding the above 108, was a disposition of farmland distribution to the defendant 7 and 8 of the first instance trial as above. However, as stated in the preceding 1, the conclusion that the distribution disposition is null and void as well as the defendant's defense is dismissed as without merit (the same shall apply to both arguments and evidence) is identical. According to the result of the appraiser non-party 9's appraisal, the above 576, 576, 576, is identical to the above 576, and the defendant is obligated to make the cancellation registration only

(3) In conclusion, part of the part against the plaintiff 2 among the original judgment against the defendant 2 shall be revoked unfairly, and the appeal by the defendant, etc. (excluding the defendant 2) shall be dismissed without merit, and the burden of litigation costs shall be determined as per Disposition by Articles 89, 92, 95, and 96 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Attachment List omitted]

Judges Lee Jae-ho (Presiding Judge)