(a) The sub-branch that supplied water to unspecified or unspecified farmland and the so-called "sub-branch" under Article 2 (2) of the Farmland Reform Act;

(b)the legality of the claim for passive confirmation of ownership, if there is a dispute over the reversion of ownership;

A debtor's right which is the object of the exercise of the subrogation right.

Article 2 (2) of the Farmland Reform Act

Park Jong-chul et al. and 43 others

E.L. et al.

Jeonju District Court Decision 64Na78 delivered on January 8, 1965

Each of the appeals is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the Plaintiffs’ ground of appeal No. 1.

According to the original decision, it is reasonable to dismiss the claim of removal of disturbance in the claim No. 2 of the purport of the claim. After springing on 1963, the defendant Lee Jae-ri claimed the ownership of this case and opened a discussion about the maintenance after extracting water and then occupying and cultivating it up to the present time. Thus, even if there is the right to use the maintenance of this case, the plaintiffs who do not occupy the maintenance of this case, even if they do not occupy the maintenance of this case, the plaintiffs' claim for removal of disturbance should be lost because they are currently occupying and using the maintenance of this case and they interfere with the use of the defendant's possession, such as the claim of this case, even if the defendant Lee Jae-ri lost possession of this case, even if they were to have lost possession of this case, it cannot be said that the plaintiffs' claim for removal of disturbance can not be made as the claim of this case.

However, in light of the records, the plaintiffs' purport of the above part of the plaintiffs' claim for exclusion of interference is "the defendant's management and use of stored water". Thus, it is reasonable to view that the purport of the claim is more than that of the plaintiffs' claim for exclusion of interference with the exercise of the plaintiffs' right to use the stored water maintained in the original case, as stated in the original decision, and it is rather reasonable to view that the plaintiff's claim for exclusion of interference with the exercise of the plaintiff's right to use the water maintained in the original case

However, after examining whether the plaintiffs have a right to use water for the stored water in this case, the plaintiffs were the reasons for their claim, and the maintenance of this case is the part of the reclaimed land that the defendant Lee Jong-hee and the defendant Lee Dong-gun buried and constructed with the land under cultivation in accordance with the Farmland Reform Act, which was distributed to the plaintiffs, and is used exclusively for the irrigation of the irrigation land including this farmland from the dys of dys of dys of dys of dys of dys of dys of dys of dys of dys of dys of dys of dys of dys of dys of dys of dys of dys of dys of dys of dys of dys of dys of dys of dys of dys of dys of dys of es of 16.

In addition, in this case, the judgment of the court below which rejected the plaintiffs' assertion other than the above, was erroneous in its reasoning, but it is not necessary to reverse the original judgment because it is legitimate in its conclusion, since the use of water for the purpose of maintaining the water for a long period of time, the maintenance of the water by the government subsidy was improved, or the plaintiffs' right to use water is not naturally acquired (Supreme Court Decision 1964Da1493 delivered on February 4, 1963, Supreme Court Decision 196Da1493 delivered on February 4, 196).

We examine the second ground for the same reason.

If there is a dispute over the ownership attribution in a lawsuit for confirmation, the plaintiff should not make a claim for the passive confirmation of the other party's ownership, but a claim for active confirmation of his own ownership should be made in this case where the circumstances of the special group did not peep. The purport of the plaintiff's first claim is to "the defendant, etc. confirms that the case is not owned by the defendant, etc.", and therefore, the original decision is just to have judged that the above claim part is illegal to the purport that there is no benefit in the protection of rights, and it is not contrary to

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges, who are dismissed without merit, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing party.

Justices of the Supreme Court Dog-gu (Presiding Judge) Dog-Jak and Mag-gu Mag-gu