1. Validity of the sale of farmland prior to completion of redemption;

2. Purport of Article 2 of the Act on Special Measures for the Transfer of Distributed Farmland Ownership;

1. Trading of farmland distributed prior to the completion of reimbursement is invalid in conflict with Article 16 of the Farmland Reform Act.

2. Article 2 of the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Transfer of Distributed Farmland Ownership is not applicable to a person who followed the right of farmland from a person who received farmland before repayment is completed.

Article 16 of the Farmland Reform Act, Article 2 of the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Transfer of Distribution Farmland Ownership

65Da1503 decided Sep. 28, 1965 (Article 16(38), Article 27Da280, 281 decided Apr. 18, 1967 (Article 16(30), Article 16(30), Article 11128, Article 15(15) and 325 of the Civil Act, Article 168Da1644 decided Nov. 21, 1969 (Article 16(38), Article 16 house17-26, Article 139 of the Civil Act), Article 69Da16775 decided Nov. 25, 1969 (Article 16(38), Article 174 of the Agricultural Act, Article 16 house-17 and Article 139 of the Civil Act)

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and one other

Jeonju District Court of the first instance (No. 4294 civilians149)

This prosecution is dismissed.

Expenses for public prosecution shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's attorney shall revoke the judgment of the first instance.

The defendant et al. shall deliver to the plaintiff the 1st,406 square meters (number omitted) of Jeon Sung-dong, Jeonju-dong.

The court costs are assessed against the defendant, etc. in the first and second instances.

As to the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant 2, the instant farmland was originally distributed by Nonparty 1, and the Nonparty sold to Defendant 2 prior to the completion of its repayment, according to the Plaintiff’s certificate No. 4, which was without any dispute between the parties, the Plaintiff’s transfer registration of ownership in the name of the Plaintiff was accepted on June 13, 1961 by Jeonju District Court No. 6397, Dec. 20, 1960.

Defendant 2 and Defendant 1, who were employed by the Plaintiff’s store as the store store. Defendant 2, etc. purchased the farmland of this case from Nonparty 1 with the money of this case since they had been stolen from the Plaintiff’s store. The Plaintiff, after consultation with Defendant 2 on March 1960, purchased the farmland of this case. The Plaintiff asserted that he paid the farmland of this case in full 5.9 on June 30, 1960 and registered the ownership transfer directly to the Plaintiff pursuant to the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Distribution of Farmland Ownership (Act No. 613). The Defendant did not inform the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff did not receive the ownership transfer registration of the farmland of this case in collusion with Nonparty 1 and submitted it to the Government to the effect that he did not receive the ownership transfer registration of the above farmland of this case from the Plaintiff under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Farmland Ownership, and that the Government did not directly obtain the ownership transfer registration of the above farmland of this case from the Plaintiff and did not directly obtain the ownership transfer registration of the above farmland of this case.

Therefore, the registration of transfer of ownership in the above plaintiff's name is null and void due to the lack of justifiable cause for the registration of transfer of ownership in the above plaintiff's name, and since the plaintiff did not acquire ownership in the farmland in this case, the plaintiff's claim on the premise that the plaintiff has ownership in the other point (the defendant's illegal occupation) shall be dismissed without any reason. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant 1 was originally distributed to the non-party 1, and the non-party 1 sold the farmland in this case to the defendant 2 before the repayment is completed, and the fact that the plaintiff was transferred from the defendant and the registration of transfer of ownership in the plaintiff's name was made through the registration of transfer of ownership in the above farmland in this case shall be deemed to be a confession that the defendant is not clearly disputed. As shown in the former part, the registration of transfer of ownership in the above plaintiff's name is null and void due to the lack of legitimate cause for the plaintiff's ownership in the farmland in this case, and the plaintiff's claim on the premise that the plaintiff has ownership in this case shall not be dismissed by applying Article 384 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judges Lee Il-il (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Justice)