1. Effect of revocation of disposition of distribution after the expiration of the period of sight as provided in Article 32 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act; and

2. The validity of sale of farmland to be distributed before the repayment of farmland is completed;

3. Whether ratification is effective for each statement to grant the registration of ownership transfer after the completion of redemption for the purchase and sale of farmland prior to the completion of redemption; and

1. Since the disposition of distributing farmland is determined as the expiration of the period of sight as stipulated in Article 32 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act, the disposition of revoking the disposition of distributing farmland, which was conducted by the re-printed Office only after the expiration of the period of re-application for

2. The sale of farmland to the purchaser without any farmland before the repayment of the farmland is completed shall be null and void a year.

3. The act of delivering a written undertaking to grant the registration of ownership transfer with the knowledge that the act of selling farmland prior to the completion of redemption is null and void shall not be deemed as ratified.

Article 19 of the Farmland Reform Act, Article 32 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act, Articles 144 and 145 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and four others

Seoul Central District Court (67Ga8327) of the first instance court

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All costs of litigation shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The defendant, etc. shall implement the procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration due to the completion of the reimbursement on December 30, 1960 on the 606 site of the 13th 13th Mayang-ri 708, Gyeyang-gu, Sinyang-gu, Gyeonggi-do. for the plaintiff on April 16, 1963.

Litigation Costs are assessed against the Defendants.

Judgment like the Disposition

With respect to 606 square meters of the 708-13 site in Gyeyang-gu, Gyeyang-gu, Gyeonggi-do, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Ansan District Court No. 7061, Apr. 16, 1963, which was received on Apr. 16, 1963, the registration of transfer of ownership was filed in the future by the Defendants due to the completion of repayment on December 13, 1960, and there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the Plaintiff is the Nonparty 1’s heir who died on Oct. 15,

Although this real estate is categorized as a site on the registry, the plaintiff was lawfully cultivated by the non-party 1, who is the deceased non-party 6, and was distributed on June 30, 1950 by the plaintiff's implementation of the Farmland Reform Act, and the non-party 1 did not receive the registration of the non-party 1's transfer from the Republic of Korea yet. The deceased non-party 1 died on October 15, 1961 and the plaintiff did not receive the registration of the transfer of the farmland but did not receive the registration of the transfer, the plaintiff's request was rejected on June 5, 1962. The plaintiff filed a dispute with the Si-Gun Farmland Reform Committee on the same farmland distribution as that of the non-party 1, which was the non-party 6's farmland distribution at the same time. The plaintiff's request was revoked on the ground that the non-party 1 had been distributed to the non-party 1, who was the non-party 6's owner of the farmland, and the plaintiff did not have the purport of this claim.

Therefore, the cancellation of the farmland distribution disposition by the Si-Gun Farmland Committee on October 27, 1962 by the deceased non-party 1's farmland distribution disposition on the land as of October 27, 1962 is final and conclusive after the expiration of the grace period stipulated in Article 32 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act, and the cancellation of the farmland distribution disposition by the request of re-acstition after the expiration of the grace period. Therefore, the cancellation of the farmland distribution disposition is only void as a matter of course, and the cancellation of the farmland distribution disposition is only delivered to the non-party 3 as farmland bond before the deceased non-party 1 completes the repayment of the farmland, and

However, even if the above facts are acknowledged, it is unreasonable for the defendant et al. to sell this land to the non-party 3 and claim that the registration under the name of the defendant et al. was null and void, and the non-party 1, the plaintiff and the plaintiff's decedent, at the request of the non-party 3 in wartime, agreed to deliver the registration of ownership transfer of this land to the non-party 4 at the request of the non-party 3, and therefore, the non-party 1, the plaintiff and the deceased non-party 1, who were the plaintiff, were aware that the sale contract between the non-party 3 and the deceased non-party 1 was ratified. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion that the non-party 1 and the non-party 4 did not have any dispute over the establishment, and that the non-party 1 and the non-party 4's testimony was not delivered to the non-party 6 without the plaintiff's testimony to the non-party 1 and the non-party 4's testimony to the non-party 1 and the non-party 4's opinion.

Therefore, since the plaintiff's claim of the principal lawsuit is groundless, it is unfair to dismiss it, and since the original judgment which accepted the plaintiff's claim is unfair, it is so decided as per Disposition by the application of Articles 89 and 96 of the Civil Procedure Act with respect to the burden of litigation costs revoked by Article 386 of the same Act.

Judges Noh Jeong-ho (Presiding Judge)