Effect of a judicial compromise based on an invalid legal act under a null and void substantive law

The settlement in court takes effect by combining the legal acts under substantive law and the acts under procedural law. Among them, if the legal acts under substantive law are null and void, the settlement in court under procedural law will also become null and void.

Article 203 of the former Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

Busan District Court Decision 4291Hun70 delivered on April 1, 201

The original judgment shall be revoked.

On October 25 of the same year, it is confirmed that the reconciliation between the defendant and the plaintiff in the Busan District Court was null and void with respect to the claim for the exclusion of the infringement of ownership No. 106 of the residents in 4290 short-term.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant through the first and second trials.

The plaintiff's attorney is seeking a judgment in the order Dong area, and the defendant's attorney is seeking a judgment that the dismissal of prosecution and the costs of prosecution should be borne by the plaintiff.

Since the plaintiff's de facto statement by both parties to the plaintiff's legal representative had cultivated 709 square meters in terms of land no longer than the non-party's possession from 4290 to 4290, on June 4, 282, the non-party's false report was made to the non-party's own farmland at the time of enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, and established a mortgage on the non-party's obligation to the defendant on October 28, 4289, and the defendant, upon voluntary auction with the execution of the mortgage, filed a lawsuit claiming the exclusion of ownership infringement against the plaintiff on April 17, 290 and filed a lawsuit against the non-party 106 with Busan District Court, which was the non-party 4290 residents' 106, and the plaintiff was merely the defendant's ownership on the farmland of this case, which was the plaintiff at the same time in the support court court's decision, and it did not have been confirmed that the non-party's ownership on the farmland was distributed to the plaintiff for a short period of 420 years thereafter.

In the defendant's legal representative, when the farmland in this case was cultivated by the plaintiff at the time when the Farmland Reform Act was implemented, the plaintiff renounced his right to distribute the farmland at the time when the plaintiff was cultivated, reported it to the non-party's own loan under agreement with the non-party and set up a mortgage as security for the defendant's obligation. The defendant acquired ownership due to the successful bid as a result of the execution of the mortgage, and the plaintiff received the ownership due to the successful bid from the head of Chang-guon on January 28, 290, and the fact that the plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming the exclusion of ownership infringement against the farmland against the plaintiff and the legal compromise such as the allegation was formed at the time of the plaintiff's president's filing of a lawsuit claiming the exclusion of ownership infringement against the farmland, but the Chang-pon, which is not the land ownership, is not the land ownership, and the distribution received from the head of the Dong head of the Dong does not have the right to distribute the land at the time of the compromise, and as such, the plaintiff's claim for this case is unfair and has the same effect as the final judgment procedure.

As evidence, the plaintiff's attorney submitted the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 to the defendant's attorney, and the defendant's attorney bears pride in the formation of evidence No. 1 and 2.

The farmland was originally owned by the non-party and cultivated by the plaintiff as of June 21, 4282, which is the date of enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act. At the time, the non-party and the plaintiff agreed with the non-party at the time, and the non-party at that time reported as debt security to the defendant, and the defendant set up a mortgage on the farmland and received the distribution of the farmland from the head of Chang-gu Office on April 17, 290 and January 28 of the same year, as a result of the execution of such mortgage, the defendant filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff for the claim for the exclusion of ownership infringement against the Busan District Court was 106 residents of the Busan District Court in 4290 and continued to be supported by the court of support on October 25 of the same year, 4290, the plaintiff in this case recognized the ownership of the defendant's farmland in this case, which was the plaintiff at the time of the lawsuit under the Farmland Reform Act, and the defendant did not have the same effect as the plaintiff's settlement in the court record as the dispute becomes null and void.

Next, it is reasonable to view that farmland which had not been self-employed at the time of enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act among the members and the defendant with respect to the invalidation of legal reconciliation among the members and the defendant will be purchased and distributed to the actual cultivator, and ownership of the props on the non-employed farmland will lose at the same time as the farmland Reform Act was enforced. Even if the tenant reported as a propspertoir land against the truth at the time of enforcement of the said Act, so long as the tenant continues to cultivate as long as it is against the truth. Since the farmland in this case was cultivated by the plaintiff other than the props from the time of enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act until the time of the institution of the suit, the ownership of the non-party is lost at the time of enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act. Since the non-party's land was created by the defendant and the defendant's land was sold at the time of enforcement of the said Act by the court below, it cannot be said that the non-party's right of ownership was acquired by the non-party's act of distributing the same legal principle as that of the previous farmland at the time of statutory compromise is valid.

Judges Lee Il-il (Presiding Judge)