(a) Whether ownership shall be reverted to the original owner if the farmland compensation paid to the prop is finally determined not to be distributed to farmland;

(b) Ownership in cases where the purchased farmland registered as State-owned under Article 2 (1) of the Act on Special Measures for Adjustment of Farmland Reform Projects has not been distributed and the period under paragraph (3) of the same Article has expired;

1. Since the Government's purchase of farmland which is not self-founded under Article 5 of the Farmland Reform Act is a condition subsequent to the release that the farmland will not be distributed, the ownership shall be reverted to the original owner, regardless of whether or not the farmland compensation has been paid to the original owner.

2. Even if farmland is registered as a state-owned farmland under Article 2(1) of the Act on Special Measures for the Adjustment of Farmland Reform Projects, it shall be interpreted that, within the period under Article 2(3) of the same Act, other farmland except that allocated under Article 2(2) of the same Act, has passed one-year period under Article 2(3) of the same Act, and simultaneously, the purchase by the State has been cancelled and its ownership is returned to the original owner.

Articles 5 and 11 of the Farmland Reform Act, Article 2 of the Act on Special Measures for the Adjustment of Farmland Reform Projects, Article 1(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Special Measures for the Adjustment of Farmland Reform Projects

[Judgment of the court below]

The legal representative of the Republic of Korea shall be the Minister of Justice of Kimchi-he

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 78Na712 delivered on January 18, 1979

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

The facts that the farmland in this case was originally owned by the Plaintiff’s deceased non-party 1 are recognized in the preparatory documents stated at the time of pleadings by submitting them to the Defendant litigation performer as of January 24, 1978, as well as by the entry of evidence Nos. 2-1, 2-2, and evidence No. 1-1 (State Farmland Management Register) and evidence No. 4-1 (Land Survey Book) cannot be deemed to be evidence to recognize that the farmland in this case was not inherited by the Plaintiff before and after the implementation of the Farmland Reform Act, and it cannot be deemed to be owned by the non-party 2. Thus, the argument of the court below on the premise that the farmland in this case was legitimate at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, and it is reasonable to purchase farmland without the consent of the court below for the reasons that the farmland in this case would not be distributed, and as long as the farmland in this case was not distributed to the original state, the farmland in this case shall not be restored to the original owner of the farmland in accordance with the provisions No. 2-3 of the Farmland Reform Act.

Justices Yang Byung-ho (Presiding Judge)