Implied transfer of a land-improvement site later gifted by readjustment

1. 01Question

   Where a land improvement combination installed a land improvement facility on state-owned land with the approval of the competent authority, did it implicitly receive that site from the owner on the date of completion, and could the Korea Rural Community Corporation, which succeeded comprehensively to its rights and obligations, still demand transfer of title registration after the site had been gifted free to the state under an approved readjustment plan?

2. 02Holding

   There is likely to be such an implied transfer. Where a combination installs a facility on state-owned land with approval, management of the site passes to it on completion, and it normally negotiates the use of the state's land or obtains permission while seeking approval, so Article 16 of the former Rural Modernization Promotion Act may vest ownership in it on the completion date. Here, however, the water channel site is likely to have been lawfully gifted free to the state under the readjustment procedure approved on 12 June 1984, so the plaintiff could not demand registration based on the earlier transfer.

   Points at issue, verbatim

   갑 조합의 권리와 의무를 포괄적으로 승계한 한국농어촌공사가 국가를 상대로 소유권이전등기절차의 이행을 구할 수 없다고 한 사례

   Unofficial English translation

   a case where the Korea Rural Community Corporation, which comprehensively succeeded to the rights and obligations of Association A, cannot seek performance of the registration procedure for the transfer of ownership against the State

3. 03Disposition

   Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision

   원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다.

   Unofficial English translation

   The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

4. 04Form of the test

   Existing test applied Read from the decision

   경지정리사업 준공일인 1983. 5. 20. 이 사건 각 토지를 이관받아 구 농촌근대화촉진법 제16조에 의하여 소유권을 취득하였다고 볼 수 있다.

   Unofficial English translation

   it may be regarded that the transferee of each parcel of land in this case was transferred the parcels on May 20, 1983, the date of completion of the land arrangement project, and acquired ownership thereof pursuant to Article 16 of the former Rural Modernization Promotion Act.

5. 05Factors

   • 농지개량조합이 사업시행인가를 받아 국가 등 소유 토지에 직접 농지개량시설을 설치한 경우
   • 갑 농지개량조합이 양수장 설치공사에 착공한 후 경지정리사업에 관한 사업시행인가를 받아 이를 준공하였고
   • 환지계획이 인가되었으며, 이에 따라 국가가 위 용수로 부지에 관하여 소유권보존등기를 마쳤는데
   • 위 용수로 부지는 이후 환지절차에 따라 적법하게 국가에 증여되었다고 볼 여지가 크므로

   Unofficial English translation

   • Where a farmland improvement association obtained an authorization for project implementation and directly installed farmland improvement facilities on land owned by the State, etc.

   • Farmland Improvement Association A commenced the construction work of installing a pumping station, then obtained an authorization for project implementation concerning a land arrangement project and completed the project, and

   • a land reallocation plan was approved, and, pursuant thereto, the State completed the preservation of ownership registration with respect to the site of the waterway;

   • there is considerable room for regarding the site of the waterway as having been validly donated to the State under the subsequent land reallocation procedure,

6. 06Relation to precedent

   Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision

   대법원 2023. 11. 16. 선고 2022다255966 판결

   Unofficial English translation

   Supreme Court Decision 2022Da255966 decided November 16, 2023

   Decisions referred to

   [1] 대법원 2023. 11. 16. 선고 2022다255966 판결

7. 07Burden of proof

   Not addressed Not in the decision

8. 08Open question and revisit condition

   If the replacement facility the state was to receive in exchange was never built on the land gifted to the state, does the free gift under Article 165(2) of the former Act still hold, leaving ownership in the combination from the completion date?

   The remand judgment of the Seoul High Court on the validity of the readjustment gift would show how the two acts are ranked. A change to Article 16 of the current Rural and Fishing Villages Improvement Act, or a later decision qualifying Supreme Court Decision 2022Da255966 on implied transfer, would require this entry to be read again.

Read 2026-10-24 · Cross-read 2026-10-24. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.

Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.