We successfully defended our client, a multi-family housing project implementation corporation, in a lawsuit involving a claim for the registration of land ownership transfer. The land in question had been transferred to the client as an infrastructure site from the State without consideration. However, Corporation K claimed succession of farmland improvement facilities and the associated land, which had been installed by an irrigation association established under the Ordinance for the Joseon Irrigation Association during the Japanese colonial period, seeking the registration of land ownership transfer based on Article 16 of the Agricultural Community Modernization Promotion Act.
The Ordinance for the Joseon Irrigation Association was announced during the Japanese colonial period, leading to the establishment of a number of irrigation associations nationwide, which constructed reservoirs, waterways, and roads. After the independence, a series of relevant acts were legislated, amended, and enacted, including the Land Improvement Projects Act in 1961, the Agricultural Community Modernization Promotion Act in 1970, the Farmland Improvement Associations Act in 1995, the Korea Agricultural and Rural Infrastructure Corporation and Farmland Management Fund Act in 2000, the Korea Rural Community and Agriculture Corporation and Farmland Management Fund Act in 2005, and the Korea Rural Community Corporation and Farmland Management Fund Act in 2008. Based on these laws, Corporation K claimed ownership of waterway systems and farmland improvement facilities established by irrigation associations, as well as the associated land. The key issue in this case was whether Article 16 of the Agricultural Community Modernization Promotion Act applied. In previous civil lawsuits, where the principle of pleading applied, courts had upheld the application of Article 16 of the Agricultural Community Modernization Promotion Act for dozens of years.
However, in this case, we demonstrated that the irrigation association had gifted the land to the State during a readjustment project under Article 165(2) of the Agricultural Community Modernization Promotion Act, proving that the land was not subject to Article 16. Additionally, we demonstrated that the plaintiff’s claim was unlawful, even when based on appraisal, as the requested land was not clearly specified and lacked specificity regarding the object of the claim. As a result, the court rejected the plaintiff’s claim, and Corporation K abandoned its appeal.
We analyzed the requirements and legal doctrine that determine when a claim for the registration of ownership transfer or cancellation of registration of ownership transfer is deemed unlawful, adopting a comprehensive and systematic approach and analysis related to cadastral and registration laws and statutes. Additionally, we developed a legal interpretation of Article 165 of the Agricultural Community Modernization Promotion Act, which differs from previous legal doctrines and is applicable to legal disputes regarding reservoirs and farmland improvement facilities nationwide for which Corporation K may assert ownership. This interpretation is expected to significantly contribute to the resolution of these disputes. Furthermore, during the litigation, we proactively offered legal advisory services regarding the land merger of existing project sites, as well as gratuitous reverts and gratuitous transfers under Article 65 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, ensuring the stable progress of the project and preventing damages to the purchasers. This case is particularly significant, with the potential to serve as a leading precedent in land development practice.
