The case holding that there is a special circumstance that farmland will not be distributed;

If the non-self-employed farmland inherited and registered by the plaintiff at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act has not been allocated to the tenant, it will be said that there is a special circumstance to not distribute the farmland later in light of the Act on Special Measures for the Adjustment of Farmland Reform Projects.

Article 2 of the Act on Special Measures for the Adjustment of Farmland Reform Projects, Article 393 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 74Da1271 Delivered on December 10, 1974

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant 1 and one other, Defendant 1 et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 77Na2569 delivered on April 21, 788

The original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal by the plaintiff's attorney are examined.

The purport of the judgment in the original judgment seems to be that the Plaintiff owned the farmland in this case as the father owned by the Plaintiff and registered as the Plaintiff’s inheritance. However, the first instance court determined to the effect that the Plaintiff’s father would lose ownership due to the implementation of the Farmland Reform Act, since the first instance court did not recognize any special circumstance that the first instance court, as the Plaintiff’s father did not own the land as the Plaintiff’s father owned and registered as the Plaintiff’s inheritance, it was naturally purchased from the State in accordance with the implementation of the Farmland Reform Act, and that it would not be distributed differently

However, the judgment of the court below is based on the premise that the defendant's fleet was submitted to the plaintiff's fleet for the construction of the land and reached the present time with the plaintiff's fleet. The purport of the judgment is the same as the premise that the defendant's side did not have a lot of money. On the other hand, it is our length that there is no special circumstance that the defendant's fleet did not distribute the land to the original owner against the original owner, if there is a new legal principle that the farmland not distributed in this case (it is not farmland that the law would return to the state, but farmland will not be nationalized) should return to the original owner.

Therefore, in the judgment of the court below, there is no reason or error of law in the incomplete hearing, and there is a reasonable ground for the argument, and the original judgment will be reversed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices

Justices Kang Jeong-hee (Presiding Justice)