Whether ownership shall be reverted to the original owner on the ground that there was no distribution under the Farmland Reform Act in the case where farmland was nationalized by other Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to State, not the purchase of farmland by the State under the Farmland Reform Act (negative)

The acquisition of farmland by the State on the condition of rescission at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act is limited to the case where the State purchases non-self-owned farmland in accordance with Article 5 (2) of the Farmland Reform Act, and in the case of farmland owned by the State in accordance with other Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging, the ownership cannot be returned to the original owner unless there was a distribution under the Farmland Reform Act.

Article 5 subparagraph 2 of the Farmland Reform Act, Article 2 of the Reversion Property Disposal Act

Supreme Court Decision 79Da311 Decided April 10, 1979 (Gong1979, 11907) (Gong1981, 14204) decided July 28, 1981 (Gong1981, 14204)

Plaintiff

Defendant

Daejeon District Court Decision 90Na6468 delivered on June 27, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The court below, based on its evidences, purchased (distribution) the land from the Central Land Administrative Agency in 14-year installments by the defendant on April 22, 1948, because the land was owned by a Japanese company at the time of 5042, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, the land prior to the division of the land in this case. The court below rejected the registration of the establishment of the land in the name of the Central Land Administrative Agency in order to secure the payment of the land at the same time (as of June 30, 1948, the Farmland Reform Act was enforced after its adoption, and distribution under Article 27-2 of the Act remains effective unless there are special circumstances, and the defendant purchased the land after the purchase of the land, and then cancelled the registration of the establishment of the above land under the name of the Central Land Administration Agency for reasons such as the cancellation of the sale contract without paying the purchase price, but without cancelling the sale contract under the name of the above Central Land Management Agency for reasons such as the cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the land in this case.

In addition, as determined by the court below, if the above sales contract between the central land administrative office and the defendant was legally cancelled, the defendant cannot be deemed as the owner of the above land at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, and the acquisition of farmland by the State under the condition of rescission for non-distribution of farmland is limited to the case where the State purchases non-self-owned farmland pursuant to Article 5 subparagraph 2 of the Farmland Reform Act. In the case of farmland owned by the State pursuant to other Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to Ownership, such ownership cannot be returned to the original owner unless there was a distribution under the Farmland Reform Act. The arguments are without merit.

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

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)