Reversion of Ownership of Land Substitution

When a replotting disposition becomes final and conclusive, the land shall be considered as the previous land and its legal relationship shall be implemented with maintaining the identity and maintaining the ownership of the previous land, so the ownership of the land shall be determined according to who is the legitimate owner of the previous land, as a matter of course, in accordance with the legal doctrine of replotting. This legal doctrine applies to a farmland improvement project operator who conducts a replotting disposition with the knowledge of the owner of the previous land, or a person who has no ownership registered transfer of ownership in the future, based on the certification of Article 126(4) of the Rural Modernization Promotion Act.

Article 126 of the Agricultural Community Modernization Promotion Act, Article 13 of the Farmland Improvement Registration and Treatment Rules

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant 1 and two others

Gwangju High Court Decision 82Na772 delivered on May 23, 1984

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Gwangju High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal of right:

The judgment of the court below that there is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to Article 126(4) of the Rural Community Modernization Promotion Act, Article 261 of the Civil Procedure Act, and Article 11(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc., which do not fall under any of the subparagraphs of Article 11(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings. Thus, the judgment of the court below cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal, and it cannot be viewed as a case of interpretation of laws, orders, rules, or

2. As to the ground of appeal for permission:

(1) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the ownership transfer registration of the above defendant 1 was invalid because the ownership transfer registration of the previous land was not based on the fact that the ownership of the previous land was changed to that of the non-party 1 on February 10, 1970 by the certification under Article 126 (4) of the Agricultural Community Modernization Promotion Act, since the ownership of the land was changed to that of the non-party 1 on the premise that the ownership of the previous land was changed to that of the non-party 1 on the non-party 1,035 square meters from the previous land ( Address 2 omitted) and the ownership transfer registration of the non-party 1 on October 23, 1975, which was passed through the defendant 1's future, was not based on the evidence that the ownership transfer registration of the land was invalid by the non-party 1 on the premise that the ownership transfer registration of the previous land was not based on the registration of the non-party 1 on the premise that it was invalid by the non-party 1's transfer registration.

(2) However, according to relevant evidence, the land which was confirmed as a substitute lot for 1,035 square meters (No. 2 omitted) in Seo-gu in Gwangju-si (No. 3,035 square meters), the previous land (No. 1,031 square meters) is determined as a substitute lot for 1,031 square meters, which is the previous land (No. 2 omitted), and as a result, the transfer registration of ownership as of October 23, 1975 at the time of the original adjudication, which was completed in the future by Defendant 1, as it is necessary to apply for the registration of a substitute lot for the farmland improvement project operator under Article 126(4) of the Agricultural Community Modernization Promotion Act, based on the fact-finding under Article 126(4) of the Supreme Court Regulations, the land substitution becomes final and conclusive and its legal relationship is limited to the previous land and the remaining land remains in the previous land is implemented as a substitute lot without maintaining its identity. This legal principle as to the ownership transfer registration of the previous land by the farmland improvement project operator is decided No. 14.

However, according to the record of the registry, since the previous land of this case was originally owned by Nonparty 2, and it is clear that there was no change in ownership other than the ownership registration completed on September 21, 1963 as the deceased non-party 1 (the date of death omitted), barring special circumstances, the final land substitution in this case shall be deemed to be the ownership of the above non-party 1's heir, who is the previous land owner, unless there are special circumstances. However, according to the evidence No. 4-3 attached to the farmland improvement project implementer under the Agricultural Community Modernization Promotion Act, if he applied for the registration of ownership transfer from the above non-party 1 for the registration of ownership transfer from the above non-party 1, the fact that the cause of the change in ownership was no more than the sale on February 10, 1970, and the plaintiff's previous land owner, who was the heir of this case, was not the one of the non-party 1, who purchased the previous land in this case's name, and thus, it shall not be viewed as the ground for invalidation of the above non-party 1's allegation.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed based on the permitted appeal, and the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice) Gangwon-young Kim Young-ju