Distribution of farmland attached facilities;

Facilities such as farming roads, which are directly needed for the management of specific farmland by the management entity, have been reverted to the farmland and purchased or distributed.

Article 2 of the Farmland Reform Act

Supreme Court Decision 4293Da38 delivered on December 7, 1961 (Seoul High Court Decision 6646, Supreme Court Decision 9Da966 delivered on September 7, 196, Supreme Court Decision 2(20)16Da1628 delivered on the summary of the decision

Plaintiff 1 and nine others

Countries

Busan District Court Msan Branch Court (77Gahap438)

All appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

(1) Revocation of the original judgment shall be revoked.

(2) (A) In the order of 0, 70 square meters on board, 80 square meters, 70 square meters on board, 10, 70 square meters, 70 square meters on board, 50 square meters, 40 square meters, 70 square meters, 50 square meters, 70 square meters, 50 square meters, 70, 700, 400, 700, 700, 700, 700, 400, 700, 500, 700, 500, 700, 700, 80, 100, 50 square meters, 50, 60, 700, 100, 60, 60, 70, 60, 60, 60, 306, 50, 15,000

(3) The first and second courts have sought a judgment that all the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

In full view of each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1-9 (each copy of register) and Gap evidence Nos. 2-1 through 8 (each copy of land cadastre), the part for which the plaintiffs sought confirmation of ownership among the roads and ditches in the purport of claim Nos. 1-9 (each copy of the register) and the whole purport of the pleadings, the part for which the plaintiffs sought confirmation of ownership among the roads and ditches in the purport of claim No. 1 is indicated as a bank, and the category of the land is indicated as a bank. With regard to this bank, at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act through several Japaneses after the registration of ownership transfer was made in the name of non-party No. 1, Japan, Japan, the ownership transfer was made in the name of non-party No. 2.

The plaintiffs' legal representative had been a private house constructed as a private house in order to prevent flood and flood damage to farmland owned by the Hanwon-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-appellee.

Therefore, this bank is an annex to the farmland management directly required at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, and as long as the plaintiffs are the plaintiffs who purchased and distributed the farmland to the defendant's country, this bank also purchased and distributed the farmland to the defendant's country under the status belonging to the non-party 2, the single management entity of the farmland and the farmland, so barring special circumstances, the registration of transfer of ownership in the plaintiffs' name transferred from the non-party 2 who lost ownership due to the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act shall be null and void.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' attorney did not compensate for the bank, and did not follow separate procedures for distribution to farmers, or did not register the ownership transfer to the defendant's front within the period prescribed by the Act on Special Measures for the Adjustment of Farmland, so this case was finalized at the same time as the above special measures were implemented, and the purchase acquisition of the defendant's country was invalidated and the ownership is returned to the non-party 2, the original owner, and the ownership transfer registration in the plaintiffs' name is valid. However, as long as the bank is an accessory facility to the farmland, as seen above, it shall be distributed together with the original owner, so there is no need for separate procedures for distribution as to the bank, and even if there was no compensation, it shall not affect the effect of distribution.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims based on the premise that the bank is owned by each of the plaintiffs are dismissed without examining further claims. As such, since the original judgment with the same conclusion is justified, all of the plaintiffs' appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing plaintiffs. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges fixed ticket (Presiding Judge) Mobile Engines