The requirements for farmland owned by the Ministry of Maritime Affairs to constitute farmland subject to distribution under the Farmland Reform Act.

Since the property owned and managed by the Joseon General belongs to the state-owned administrative property devolved to the Republic of Korea from the U.S. military administration in accordance with Article 33 of the Military Government Act and Article 1 of the first Agreement on Finance and Property between the Government of the Republic of Korea and the Government of the United States of America, double farmland is investigated and determined on land not required for official or public use pursuant to Article 10 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act, and it cannot be the farmland subject to distribution unless it is handed over to the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry.

Article 11 of the Farmland Reform Act, Article 10 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act

Supreme Court Decision 79Da1675 delivered on November 27, 1979, Supreme Court Decision 86Meu725 delivered on April 14, 1987

Plaintiff-Appellee et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

friendly Construction Co., Ltd. and one other, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee

Seoul High Court Decision 88Na13009 Decided September 5, 1988

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.

The property owned and managed by the Joseon General Co., Ltd. belongs to state-owned administrative property devolved to the Republic of Korea from the Gun Office under Article 33 of the Gun Government Act and Article 1 of the first Agreement on Finance and Property between the Government of the Republic of Korea and the Government of the United States of America. Among this, farmland is investigated and determined as land not required for official or public use under Article 10 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act, and it cannot be deemed farmland subject to distribution unless it is handed over from the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 79Da1675, Nov. 27, 1979; 86Meu725, Apr. 14, 1987).

The court below held that each of the lands of this case is a state farmland after lawful confirmation of the fact that the ownership transfer registration has been made in the name of the defendant state on the grounds of the reversion of right on September 31, 194, as farmland on July 28, 194 and May 4, 194, under the name of the Joseon General Government, and the ownership transfer registration was made in the name of the defendant state on the grounds of the reversion of right on September 31, 1948. Thus, even if the ownership transfer registration completed in the name of the defendant state is deemed to be a state farmland, even if the ownership transfer registration is made in the name of the defendant state, it does not mean that the ownership, which is the cause of registration, is not a state property belonging to the defendant state, but a property belonging to the defendant state as a state property belonging to the defendant state. Thus, the court below's decision is not justified on the premise that each of the lands of this case should be presumed to be the farmland

In addition, the court below determined that each of the land of this case, which is a state farmland, cannot be viewed as farmland subject to distribution of farmland because there is no evidence of assertion that there was a transfer of property under Article 10 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act. In light of the records, the above judgment below is just and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles under Article 10 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act or by imposing the burden of proof, such as the theory of lawsuit, and each of the theories is not appropriate precedents in

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 Sang-won (Presiding Justice) Lee Jong-won (Presiding Justice)