Even if the amount of redemption distributed and received by the Government pursuant to Article 2 (2) 2 of the Act on Special Measures for the Adjustment of Farmland Reform Projects exceeds the amount of compensation of the farmland, it cannot be deemed that the amount of redemption was unjust as much as its difference is against Article 13 of the Farmland Reform Act.

Even if the amount of redemption distributed and received by the Government pursuant to Article 2 (2) 2 of the Act on Special Measures for the Adjustment of Farmland Reform Projects exceeds the amount of compensation for the farmland, it cannot be deemed that the amount of redemption was unjust as much as its difference, regardless of its illegality against this Article.

Article 13 of the Farmland Reform Act, Article 741 of the Civil Act, Article 2(2) of the Act on Special Measures for the Adjustment of Farmland Reform Projects

University of a school juristic person

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 70Na626 delivered on September 23, 1970

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the Plaintiff’s agent’s grounds of appeal.

According to the partial provisions of Article 2(2) of the Act on Special Measures for Arrangement of Farmland Reform Projects promulgated on March 13, 1968 (see subparagraph 2), the Government, as of the time of enforcement of the above Act, has already completed compensation for farmland which has not yet been distributed to the farmer if the cultivator is confirmed. However, according to the facts established by the court below, the land at issue in this case (No. 241, 1,653, 142, 291, 149, 291, and 149) was originally owned by the plaintiff, but purchased the said provision from the Government under the Farmland Reform Act, and since the Government had already completed compensation for farmland which had already been distributed to the plaintiff as of July 10, 1967, the Government had to accept the above provision on special measures for reorganization of farmland at the price of the farmer and the above provision on special measures for redemption of farmland at the same time as the above Act had already been enacted. As to the payment of farmland from the farmer and the above provision on special measures for redemption of farmland at the same time as the above.

In other words, as in the case of land of this case, it is not stipulated that if farmland has already been compensated for the absolute value of farmland, it shall be compensated again with the same amount as the amount received by the government pursuant to the latter part of Article 2 (2) of the same Act.

As a result, the Government shall purchase farmland from the owner of farmland and compensate the owner of farmland less, and the Government shall not be deemed to gain profits from the property of the prop without any legal cause (see Article 741 of the Civil Act) to the extent that the difference is attributable to the difference. It is essential to say that the entry of Gap evidence 3-2 (Management Guidelines) is about the distribution of farmland under Article 2 (2) 1 of the Act on Special Measures for the Management of Farmland, and it is not about the distribution of farmland under Article 2 (2) 2 of the same Act as in the case of this case. Thus, in the case of this case, the court below did not apply the so-called principle that the amount of redemption and compensation under Article 13 of the Farmland Reform Act should be the same amount.

In short, the court below did not err in matters of law by misunderstanding the legal principles of Dong principle with regard to the amount of redemption for distributed farmland compensation, or by misapprehending the legal principles of Dong principle under Article 13 (1) and (2) of the Farmland Reform Act. In addition, there are no errors of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to unjust enrichment under the Civil Act. Thus, the appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party

This decision is consistent with the opinions of the involved judges.

The presiding judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge)