1. The distinction between the deprivation of possession and the obstruction of possession of the cultivated land;

2. Appropriateness of a request for confirmation of a cultivation right by an unclaimed person;

1. It cannot be deemed that the Defendant, who asserts that the Plaintiff, a former farmer, had continued to cultivate, intends to do so, such as spreading a seed on his own as a person’s own, he would have been deprived of possession.

2. In this case, the above sales contract for the right to cultivate land is merely acquiring the right to cultivate land by the buyer upon delivery and commencement of cultivation for possession of land. However, the sales contract which does not have the effect of claims against the non-party is not sufficient to seek confirmation against the plaintiff as the present cultivator.

Article 204 of the Civil Act, Article 205 of the Civil Act

Seoul High Court Decision 80Da1362 delivered on June 23, 1981 (No. 662, No. 14081 delivered on October 14, 1980), 80Da1228 delivered on June 23, 198

Plaintiff

Defendant

Jeonju District Court Decision 78Na222, 79Kahap34 (Counterclaim)

The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff’s appeal is dismissed.

However, due to the modification of the purport of the claim, the indication of real estate recorded in the order of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be corrected to 5,000 square meters in Chang-ri (number 1 omitted), 5,000 square meters in each place (number 2 omitted), 5,00 square meters in each place (number 3 omitted), 5,00 square meters in each place (number 5,000 square meters), and 5,000 square meters in each place (number 4 omitted) at 5,012 square meters in each place.

All costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant, hereinafter the plaintiff) shall not obstruct the plaintiff's farming activities of the real estate stated in the revised order by modifying the purport of the claim in the first instance.

The defendant-Counterclaim plaintiff (the defendant-Counterclaim plaintiff, hereinafter the defendant)'s counterclaim is dismissed.

The judgment that all principal lawsuit and counterclaims shall be borne by the defendant.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

It is confirmed that the right to cultivate the corrected real estate stated in the original text is the defendant by modifying the purport of the counterclaim in the trial.

The judgment that all costs of the principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall be borne by the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

(1) According to the Plaintiff’s claim, No. 5 (Receipt) and No. 5 (No. 7) were transferred to Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 6 without dispute over the Plaintiff’s establishment of the land for relocation, and No. 7 (No. 7 copies of designation of reclaimed land) were created without dispute over the existence of the original land, No. 3 and No. 4 (A. 3) were established by Nonparty 1 and 2’s testimony, and No. 1 (a certificate of renunciation, No. 12-4) were found to have been forged, but no other evidence was found to prove that the Plaintiff’s new land was distributed to Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 6’s new land for relocation to Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 6’s new land for relocation to the above 6-year government office. The Plaintiff’s new land for relocation to Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 6’s new land for relocation to the above 7-year new land for relocation to the above 6-year new land for relocation to the above 7-year new land for relocation to the same effect.

The defendant's legal representative also purchased the right in accordance with the designation of the land scheduled for settlement as above from the non-party 4 on April 7, 1973 and received the letter of temporary cultivation. Thus, the defendant's legal representative asserts that the act of Bori-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-party in the above land is legitimate. Thus, it is acknowledged as above that the plaintiff occupied and cultivated the above land since he acquired the real transfer from the non-party 4, who is the original cultivator of the above land. Thus, even if the defendant received the right to the above land from the non-party 4 and received the letter of temporary cultivation, it is not a reason to reject the plaintiff's claim for removal of interference based

Although the defendant, even though he has the right to cultivate the land in this case, the defendant's act of cutting the seeds on the land in this case cannot be deemed as an act of obstructing the possession of the land in this case. Thus, the plaintiff's claim in this case seeking the exclusion of interference with possession is unjustifiable. Thus, in case where the plaintiff's attempt to grow the seeds in this case, such as where the plaintiff who is the former arable continued to grow as a person who asserts that he has the right to grow in this case, the plaintiff's possession is still owned, and it is deemed that the possessor has the right to possess in this case, and it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff has been affected by the deprivation of possession. Thus, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant for the exclusion of interference with the above farming act is justified.

(2) We examine the defendant's counterclaims.

Although the defendant's legal representative argues that the plaintiff has the right to cultivate the land in this case, the plaintiff's legal representative is seeking confirmation. However, in this case, the above contract for the purchase of the right to cultivate the land in this case is the purpose of the contract to acquire the right to cultivate the land in this case by transferring the land and commencing the cultivation of the land in accordance with the contract, and it cannot be viewed that the contract for the sale of the right to cultivate the land in this case cannot be seen as acquiring the right to cultivate the land in this case merely because the contract for the sale of the right to cultivate the land in this case was concluded, and the defendant cannot seek confirmation against the plaintiff on the ground that he has the right to cultivate the land in this case. Thus, the defendant's counterclaim for confirmation in this case is groundless.

(3) If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and the defendant's counterclaim is dismissed without merit. Since the plaintiff's claim of this case was modified due to the change of the plaintiff's purport of the claim in the trial, the lot number and pointed out of the above land were changed, and accordingly, the indication of real estate stated in the order of the judgment of the court of first instance is corrected and the appeal costs are assessed against the defendant

Judges Lee Lee-soo (Presiding Judge)