[1] Reversion of farmland not distributed at the time of the enforcement of the Act on Special Measures for the Adjustment of Farmland Reform Projects, and farmland registered as state-owned under Article 2 of the same Act but not distributed

[2] The presumption of land price securities issued to a prop under the former Farmland Reform Act

[1] Since the government's purchase of farmland which is not self-defined under the former Farmland Reform Act (repealed by Act No. 4817 of Dec. 22, 1994, Article 2 (1) of the Addenda to the Farmland Act), after which it was purchased on the condition that it will not be distributed, farmland not distributed at the time of enforcement of the former Act on Special Measures for the Adjustment of Farmland Reform (repealed by Article 2 (2) of the Addenda to the Farmland Act, hereinafter "Special Measures Act") shall be reverted to the original owner after the non-distribution of farmland is determined and decided not to be distributed simultaneously with the enforcement of the Act on Special Measures, except farmland registered or confirmed as state-owned under Article 2 (1) of the Act on Special Measures, and even farmland other than that distributed within the period under Article 2 (3) of the latter Act shall be returned to the original owner after the expiration of the period of one year under Article 2 (3) of the Act on Special Measures, and the purchase of farmland by the State shall be released and reverted to the original owner.

[2] The land price securities issued to a non-self-employed farmland prop purchased by the government pursuant to the former Farmland Reform Act (repealed by Act No. 4817 of Dec. 22, 1994, Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Addenda to the Farmland Act) are nothing more than a certificate proving the claim for the compensation for farmland and not a certificate indicating the relation of farmland ownership. Thus, the land price securities are not presumed to be the owner of the farmland subject to distribution.

[1] Article 2 of the former Act on Special Measures for Adjustment of Farmland Reform Projects (repealed by Act No. 4817 of Dec. 22, 1994) / [2] Articles 5 and 8 of the former Farmland Reform Act (repealed by Act No. 4817 of Dec. 22, 1994)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 79Da311 delivered on April 10, 1979 (Gong1979, 11907) (Gong1981, 14204 delivered on July 28, 1981), Supreme Court Decision 81Da782 delivered on December 8, 1981 (Gong1982, 141), Supreme Court Decision 87Da3168 delivered on April 25, 198 (Gong198, 897), Supreme Court Decision 92Da3701 delivered on November 18, 194 (Gong195, 377) (Gong195, 195, 1941).

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff (Attorney Gyeong-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Korea

Seoul District Court Decision 98Na51236 delivered on August 25, 1999

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. Since the Government purchases farmland which is not self-definite under the former Farmland Reform Act (repealed by Act No. 4817, Dec. 2, 1994; Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Addenda to the Farmland Act); it is purchased under the condition that the farmland will not be distributed. Thus, farmland not distributed at the time of the enforcement of the former Act on Special Measures for the Adjustment of Farmland Reform (repealed by Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the Addenda to the Farmland Act; hereinafter referred to as the "Special Measures Act") shall be reverted to the original owner after the special measures were determined not to be distributed simultaneously with the enforcement of the Act (see Supreme Court Decision 95Da41031, Feb. 13, 1996; 95Da41031, Feb. 13, 1996); even if farmland is State-registered under Article 2 (3) of the Special Measures Act, the period of the State's purchase of farmland, other than farmland distributed under Article 2 (2) of the same Act, shall be returned to the original owner (see Supreme Court Decision 18181.

According to the records, since there is no evidence to deem that each real estate of this case was distributed or registered as a state-owned property at the time of March 13, 1968, the enforcement date of the Act on Special Measures, it shall be deemed that the real estate of this case was returned to the original owner at the same time as the Act on Special Measures was enforced, so the judgment below is somewhat insufficient in its reasoning, but its conclusion is just, and there is no error of law that affected the conclusion

2. The land price securities issued to the visa of the non-self-owned farmland purchased by the Government under the former Farmland Reform Act are merely a certificate proving the claim for the farmland price compensation and is not a certificate indicating the farmland ownership. Thus, the person who received the land price securities is not presumed to be the owner of the farmland subject to distribution immediately. However, in light of the documents related to compensation and the procedure of confirmation of ownership at the time of issuance of land price securities, it is sufficient to recognize that the non-party, the plaintiff's father at the time of purchase of each of the instant real estate under the former Farmland Reform Act, was the owner.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which held the above purport is just, and there is no violation of law as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)