The effect of the transfer registration of ownership made on the ground that the farmland devolving upon its use has been changed from the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry and the repayment has been completed.

In case where the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry grants permission to change the purpose of use of farmland under paragraph (1) 4 of this Article and Article 9 of the Enforcement Decree of this Act, the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry shall not dispose of the farmland under the pretext of distribution or temporary use

Article 6 (1) 4 of the Farmland Reform Act, Article 9 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act

Korea Life Insurance Corporation

Stunpy et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 62Na1268 delivered on December 27, 1963, 200

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The gist of the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal is that the Plaintiff’s land, which is reverted to the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, was entirely constructed in the vicinity at the time of enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, as well as all houses were located in the Seoul Special Metropolitan City’s Seoul Special Self-Governing Province. Even if there were several people living in the vicinity of the said land, they were cultivated in a manner more temporarily than that of agricultural management under the social or economic norms, and thus, they were permitted to change the purpose of use of the Central Non-Governmental Institute, which was established by the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry, and that the Plaintiff had completed the registration of ownership transfer due to the completion of the reimbursement under the name of the Central Non-Governmental Institute on February 14, 1954 and completed the registration of ownership transfer as of May 12, 1959, and thus, the head of Seongbuk-gu Special Metropolitan City Non-Indicteding Province’s application for the change of ownership transfer for the purpose of distribution of the said land was rejected for the reason that the change of ownership transfer had already been rejected.

I think, Article 6 (1) 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act is excluded from the application of the Farmland Reform Act to the above farmland if the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry permits the change of the purpose of use for the above farmland pursuant to Article 9 (1) 4 of the above Enforcement Decree of the same Act. Therefore, even if the farmland was not self-employed, it is not nothing more than the Government. Therefore, as the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry determines that the original judgment cannot be disposed of for distribution or other reasons, as long as the original judgment became final and conclusive by lawful evidence, the ownership transfer registration for the above land was no longer valid for the plaintiff to whom the right of use for the land was cultivated by the President of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry to the extent that the ownership transfer registration for the above land was invalid for the reason that it was no longer valid for the plaintiff to whom the ownership transfer registration for the above land was made for the reason that the ownership transfer registration for the above land was no longer valid for the plaintiff to the extent that the ownership transfer registration for the above land was made due to the change of non-party foundation's ownership transfer.

Therefore, by unanimous opinion of all participating judges, it is so decided as per Disposition by Articles 408, 95, and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Na-man (Presiding Judge)