(a) The will, competence, cultivation ability, and relationship between the ability of an inheritor to inherit farmland;

(b) A person who is able to succeed to the distribution right of the farmland where the person who received and distributed the distributed farmland dies;

(a)no person who is not a farmer nor a person who does not maintain his livelihood by the cultivation of farmland shall inherit the farmland (right of distribution);

(b) farmland shall also be jointly inherited in addition;

Article 3 and Article 15 of the Farmland Reform Act

Plaintiff

Republic of Korea 1 other

Busan District Court Decision 67Na400 delivered on March 8, 1968

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendants.

Judgment on the first ground of appeal by Defendant Republic of Korea’s correction of a trial performer.

Since the original judgment made it clear that part of the plaintiff's claim for cancellation of ownership transfer registration on the main issue of the case against the defendant Republic of Korea was well-grounded, there was no error in the deliberation and judgment like the theory of lawsuit in the original judgment, and according to the records (see Chapter 144), it is obvious that the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's claim for cancellation of the registration and transfer registration should be justified because the plaintiff's claim for ownership transfer registration should be inherited to his/her property heir due to the death of the representative of the plaintiff, even though the land on the main issue of household cannot return to the plaintiff's sole ownership, and therefore, it is obvious that the plaintiff's claim for cancellation

As pointed out in the plaintiff's argument, the plaintiff's argument that the land was self-afford before the death of the plaintiff Kim Jae-sik and that the plaintiff was transferred with all rights to the farmland. However, the plaintiff's argument that the plaintiff's whole purport is that the plaintiff has been cultivated by being entrusted with all rights to the cultivation during his/her lifetime. In particular, it is difficult to view that the plaintiff was given a donation of the land or purchased it from his/her line, and therefore, it is difficult to view that the plaintiff's argument that the plaintiff filed the principal suit as stipulated in Article 2 of the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Ownership Transfer of Distributed Farmland is erroneous in the purport of the same Act, and that it is nothing more than a lack of the plaintiff's assertion.

The ground of appeal No. 2 is examined.

The court below held that, rather than accepting the claim in accordance with the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Transfer of Ownership of Small Farmland Distribution, the plaintiff Cho Jong-ho, who is the owner of farmland, died, and that the plaintiff (3 South) and the defendant Kim Il-ho (2 South) who is the heir of the deceased shall succeed to the farmland as a member of the deceased, from the Republic of Korea, the registration of transfer of ownership of defendant Kim Il-il from the Republic of Korea to the Republic of Korea should be cancelled only for the part equivalent to the plaintiff 1/2 of the deceased's share, without the grounds for registration. Therefore, there is no reason for raising an appeal that there has been a violation of the above Act on Special Measures, and there is no ground for appeal that criticizes the court below's legitimate decision on the selection of evidence creation (the grounds for appeal as to the inheritance of farmland is examined in the judgment of the ground for appeal

Defendant 2’s attorney’s ground of appeal No. 1

The facts established by the court below are that the non-party 1 who died before the repayment of the farmland was divided to the non-party 2 and the non-party 3, who was the defendant 2 and the non-party 2, both South and North, at the time of his death in 1950. However, since the non-party 2 had a commercial business with the deceased's house from August 15 to the present, the non-party 2 became the head of the household, and the non-party 3, and the plaintiff were living together with the plaintiff and the non-party 3, and the plaintiff paid a reimbursement fee in his name while cultivating the real estate. The non-party 2 paid the plaintiff's school expenses in accordance with the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Transfer of Distribution of Farmland Ownership, and the non-party 2, the deceased non-party 1's heir, at the time of his death, did not have the right to cultivate the real estate at the time of his death in the above 9-year farmland inheritance, the plaintiff and the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the plaintiff's heir.

The ground of appeal No. 2 is examined.

In a case where a person who received and distributes distributed farmland succeeds to the farmland as a result of his death, even though he is not a farmer but a person who does not maintain his livelihood by the cultivation of the farmland cannot inherit his right to receive and distribute the farmland, in view of the law that does not allow the distribution of farmland to a person who is not a farmer. Therefore, in full view of the law of inheritance of the inheritance of the property under the Civil Act and the spirit of the law of the Farmland Reform Act, it is reasonable to interpret that the right to receive and distribute the farmland is inherited to a person who is a member of the family, who is a head of the family or a member of the family, who is a member of the family, who lives together with a farmer who is a head of the family or a member of the family, and in such a case, the right to receive and distribute the farmland can not be said to be a case where measures are taken under Articles 19(1) and 21 of the Farmland Reform Act,

The judgment on the third ground for appeal

Article 15 of the Farmland Reform Act provides that farmland shall be succeeded to by adding, and it is not a law that does not recognize the inheritance of farmland's common heritage. Therefore, the appeal is without merit.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Na-dong (Presiding Judge)