Plaintiff 1 and 2 others (Attorney converted-in, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea

April 1, 2009

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2008Gadan138957 Decided November 12, 2008

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant will implement the registration procedure for cancellation of each registration of ownership preservation, which was completed on April 19, 196 by the High Government District Court of the Republic of Korea, the High Government Branch of the attached list No. 12164, with respect to the real estate in paragraph (3) of the attached list, which was completed on April 19, 196 by the High Government Branch of the High Government Branch of the High Court of the Republic of Korea, and completed on July 19, 1982.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant will implement the procedure for the cancellation registration of the registration of the preservation of ownership, which was completed on April 19, 1996 by the High Government Branch of the High Government Branch of the High Government Branch of the High Court with respect to the real estate in the separate sheet Nos. 1 and 2 in the separate sheet to the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. According to the Land Survey Division drawn up during the Japanese occupation occupation period, the land survey division, in which Nonparty 3 was located on May 25, 1913, 191, is the land that was located in the boundary of the YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY 142, YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY 531 (hereinafter “land before division”).

B. On April 15, 1967, the land before subdivision was divided into 142-14 square meters (1,468 square meters, 144 square meters, 142-22 square meters (73 square meters), 142-3 of the same Ri (215 square meters, 215 square meters, and 2 real estate listed in the separate sheet; hereinafter the same shall apply) of the same Ri, 142-222 square meters, 142-365 square meters (the same shall apply to the real estate listed in the separate sheet 2; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the Defendant completed the registration of preservation of ownership on the land listed in subparagraphs 1 and 2 of this case by the Government of Gyeyang-gu District Court of the Republic of Korea, the Goyang-dong Branch Office of the Republic of Korea on April 19, 196.

C. Upon the enforcement of the former Farmland Reform Act (amended by Act No. 31, Jun. 21, 1949; repealed by Act No. 4817, Dec. 22, 1994; hereinafter “former Farmland Reform Act”), the farmland distribution was completed, the non-party 1 (the non-party in the judgment of the Supreme Court) who has a domicile in Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government ○○dong (hereinafter omitted) submitted an application for compensation (Evidence 5-3) with respect to the land of the same kind, including the land before subdivision, such as the Gyeonggi-gun, Seogu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City ○○dong (hereinafter omitted).

D. Meanwhile, the legal domicile of the deceased non-party 2, the deceased non-party 2, who is the father of the plaintiffs, was "○○○○ (hereinafter referred to as "number 3 omitted)", and the deceased non-party 1, the father of the plaintiffs, was born "○○ (hereinafter referred to as "number 3 omitted) in Gyeonggi-do." On January 21, 1965, the legal domicile of the deceased non-party 1, who is the deceased non-party 2, was divided into "Seoul ○○-dong (hereinafter referred to as "number 2 omitted)" and the legal domicile of the deceased non-party 1, who was the legal domicile of the deceased non-party 1, was "○○-ri (hereinafter referred to as "number 3 omitted)," and the domicile of the Seoul Seo-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter referred to as "number 1 omitted), and the plaintiffs died on November 17, 200 and became the heir of the plaintiffs.

【Fact-finding without any dispute over the ground for recognition】 The entry of Gap evidence 1-1, 2, 2, 3-1 through 3, Gap evidence 4, 5-1 through 6, Gap evidence 6 through 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

If the Government purchases farmland which is not self-fishered under the former Farmland Reform Act, and then becomes final and conclusive after taking measures on the condition that the farmland will not be distributed after it will not be distributed, regardless of whether the farmland compensation amount has been paid to the original owner, ownership shall be reverted to the original owner. The farmland of 61,000 square meters, including the land before the division, was owned by Nonparty 1 at the time of the enforcement of the former Farmland Reform Act, and was purchased to the State as non-fishered farmland, and was issued with the securities number issued by the Seoul Special Metropolitan City (number omitted). Since the first and second lands of this case were determined not to be distributed and returned to Nonparty 1 who is the original owner, the Defendant is obligated to perform the registration procedure for cancellation of each of the first and second lands of this case.

B. Determination

An application for compensation shall be submitted to the head of the farmland committee and the head of the Gu, the head of the Eup/Myeon, with the verification of actual ownership of the farmland to be compensated under the former Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act (repealed by Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Addenda to the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Act, Presidential Decree No. 14835 of Dec. 22, 1995), Article 13, Article 18 and Article 19 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act (repealed by Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Addenda to the Enforcement Rule of the Farmland Act, No. 1217 of Dec. 29, 195), together with the confirmation of the fact that the person entitled to compensation under the former Farmland Reform Act actually owns the farmland to be compensated, with the verification of the fact that the land was actually owned by the owner of the farmland and the head of the Si/Eup/Myeon, the application for compensation shall be accompanied by the confirmation of the fact that the land was verified by the former Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act (No. 243 of April 14, 1950).

In the instant case, in order to have the ownership of the land transferred to another person from the name of the assessment title, specific acquisition by succession should be asserted and proved. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as stated in the evidence No. 5-1 to No. 3 and No. 9, Nonparty 1’s written application for compensation (Evidence No. 5-3) submitted by Nonparty 1 as stated in the above basic facts C-X in the land category column, land category column, “X-Imm-Im-Im-Im-Im-Im-Im-Im-Im-Im-Im-Im-Im-Im-Im-Im-Im-Im-Im-Im-Im-Om-Im-Im-Im-Um-Um-Um-Um-Um-Um-Um-Um-Um-Um-Um-Um-Um-Um-Um-Um-Um-Um-Um-Um-U-Um-Um-Um-Um-Um.-Um.-Um.-Um.-Um.

Therefore, without any need to examine the plaintiffs' claims based on the premise that Nonparty 1 is the owner of the land of this case No. 1 and 2.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' request for the cancellation registration procedure for each of the lands of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be justified, and the plaintiffs' appeal shall be dismissed as it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Omission of Indication of Real Estate]

Judges Lee Lee-tae (Presiding Judge)