(a) A person who has cultivated farmland, which is the land scheduled for replotting and has been distributed therefrom shall acquire the ownership of such land finally even after the disposition of replotting is completed;

B. Cases where the subject matter of a lawsuit is not identical, and thus does not conflict with the res judicata effect of the protocol of recognition and recognition.

Not only the purport of the claim in a recognized and accepted protocol but also the subject land of the affected claim is not specified, but also the subject land of the affected claim is different, so the subject matter of the lawsuit is not identical to each other, so it does not conflict with the res judicata.

Article 11 of the Farmland Reform Act, Article 57 of the Land Readjustment and Rearrangement Projects Act

66Da158 delivered on July 4, 1967, 67Da1224, 1225 delivered on September 5, 1967

Plaintiff 1 and one other attorney-at-law

Defendant 1 and 3 others, Counsel for the defendant Kim Jong-sung

Seoul High Court Decision 65Na2041 decided April 6, 1967, Seoul High Court Decision 65Na2041 decided April 6, 1967

Each appeal by the defendant, etc. against the defendant is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant, etc.

The grounds of appeal by Defendant 2, Defendant 3, and Defendant 4, and the grounds of appeal by Defendant 1 (the supplemental grounds of appeal and supplementary grounds of appeal are all filed after the lapse of the submission period, to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental grounds of appeal) are examined.

As to the ground of appeal No. 1 by Defendants 2, 3, and 4

According to the records, with respect to the statement of recognition (No. 6) of the river site in which the plaintiff 1 filed a claim for confirmation of farmland right against the defendant 3 and the defendant 4, the defendants are confirmed to be farmland distributed to the plaintiff 1 among the river site in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul (No. 1 omitted), (No. 2 omitted), (No. 3 omitted), and (No. 3 omitted), since the plaintiff 1 claims confirmation of ownership of the plaintiff 1, among the river site in the branch line, the river site in which the plaintiff 1 was distributed to the plaintiff 1, the plaintiff 1 is not identical to the defendant 4 of this case, which is part of the river site in the previous (No. 2 omitted) and (No. 3 omitted), and (No. 3 omitted) and (No. 3 omitted, which are part of the river site in which the plaintiff 1 did not own the plaintiff 1, and it does not conflict with the purport of the claim, and thus, the court below's judgment is justified in rejecting the subject-matter of the lawsuit in accordance with the defendant's claim.

As to the ground of appeal No. 2 by Defendant 2, Defendant 3, and Defendant 4

According to the facts established by the original judgment, this piece of land is the land of Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul (Land Number 1 omitted), (Land Number 2 omitted), (Land Number 3 omitted), and (Land Number 3 omitted), which was the land of the branch line before August 15, 1945, and is the Seoul Urban Area Planning Project (Land Number 4 omitted), 21 square meters [current 60 square meters (Land Number 4 omitted), 15 square meters (Land Number 5 omitted), 109 square meters (Land Number 6 omitted) of the site of the 37 square meters (Land Number 6 omitted) and 109 square meters (Land Number 7 omitted) of the land of the 200-dong, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul (Land Number 1 omitted), and the land of the 196-dong, which was newly constructed and announced as farmland of the 1949.61 piece of Farmland Reform Act, and the plaintiffs are still entitled to the land substitution plan to acquire and benefit from the land of the 196-party land.

As to the ground of appeal No. 3 by Defendant 2, Defendant 3, and Defendant 4

Based on evidence, the court below found that the above land was a river site of the same ○○ Dong, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul (number 1 omitted), (number 2 omitted), (number 3 omitted), (number 3 omitted), and (number 3 omitted), and was a reserved land lot of the same ○○ Dong (number 4 omitted) and was a farmland used for cultivation as a dry field at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, and was currently farmland, and the plaintiffs were distributed the above ○ Dong (number 4 omitted) with the lot number of the above ○dong (number 4 omitted), which is the land where the land was gathered. The court below found that each part of the river site of the same ○○dong-dong, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul (number 1 omitted), (number 2 omitted), (number 3 omitted), and (number 3 omitted), and there is no reason to believe that the plaintiffs' appeal was unlawful or unlawful, without any specific grounds to the contrary, that there is no specific grounds to the contrary.

Defendant 1’s ground of appeal

On the grounds of the theory of lawsuit, the rules of evidence are written in the original judgment, and it cannot be said that there is any error in the reasoning for lack of reasoning or the mistake in the violation of the law.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges by applying Articles 95, 89, and 93 of the Civil Procedure Act to the bearing of litigation costs.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Kim Young-chul Kim Young-ho (Presiding Judge)