Whether ownership is directly acquired in accordance with Article 16 of the former Farmland Creation Act for land for which authorization for completion has been obtained after completion of reclamation with permission for reclamation (negative)

It cannot be deemed that a parcel of land, the reclamation of which has been authorized after completion of the reclamation is authorized, shall be distributed at a certain rate at the time of obtaining authorization of completion under Article 16 of the former Farmland Creation Act, which is a law governing the reclamation at the time of obtaining authorization of completion of the reclamation." It shall not be deemed that a parcel of land is acquired according to the provisions, and only after completing the procedures for distribution, ownership shall be acquired.

Article 16 of the former Farmland Creation Act (amended by Act No. 1872, Jan. 16, 1967); Article 186 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Han, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellee)

Hawon-gun

Defendant 1 and one other

Seoul District Court Decision 96Na43682 delivered on June 18, 1997

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the plaintiff acquired land of this case on August 25, 1965 and completed the land reclamation on or around September 20, 1967, and that the plaintiff acquired land of this case on the ground that approval of completion was obtained from the Governor of Gangwon-do on April 3, 197. According to Article 16 (1) of the Farmland Creation Act (Act No. 1872 of January 16, 1967), the plaintiff's claim of this case under the premise that the plaintiff acquired 6/10 shares of the land of this case on the ground that the land of this case was acquired on or around August 20, 196, and that the land of this case, which was acquired on or about the same ground that the land of this case was not subject to the above 6/10 of the Land Development Promotion Act (No. 1028 of February 22, 196, the above Act was repealed by the implementation of the Farmland Development Act) and that the land of this case should be sold without delay.

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

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)