[분배농지확인][집7민,083]
Procedures for returning farmland after enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, distributing farmland recovered or acquired due to farming or other reasons;
(a)under this Article and Article 32 of the Enforcement Decree of this Act the distribution of farmland recovered or acquired by the Government after the enforcement of this Act shall also be subject to such procedures as are in respect of the distribution of farmland recovered or acquired;
B. The distribution of farmland recovered or acquired by the government after the enforcement of this Act shall not take effect unless the procedures pursuant to Article 20 of the same Act and Article 32 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act are implemented. Therefore, an objection by interested parties against the distribution of farmland that is not transferred by the government due to the return after the enforcement of this Act, the separation of the farmland to be recovered or acquired by the government shall not take effect. Therefore, it is not necessary to observe the objection
Article 20 of the Farmland Reform Act, Article 32 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act
Acquisition by Interest
Water;
Daegu District Court Decision 58Da109 delivered on April 16, 1958, Daegu High Court Decision 2005Da109 delivered on April 16, 1958
Even in the case of the distribution of farmland recovered or acquired by the government after the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, it shall not take effect unless the site investigation pursuant to the Farmland Claim List and the sight of each farm household for ten days pursuant to Article 32 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and the distribution of the farmland shall take effect. Therefore, it shall be reasonable to interpret that the objection by the interested parties as to the distribution of farmland not yet legal procedure should not require compliance with the time limit for objection acknowledged as stipulated under the premise that the legal procedure is a separate legal procedure. In this case, it is difficult to recognize that the ownership of the farmland was attached to the government even if the court below decided on the first record and the original judgment, and it cannot be said that the distribution of the farmland to the plaintiff is null and void as a matter of course, and therefore, even though the defendant's objection against the distribution has passed by the time limit for objection against the farmland distribution, the decision of the court below is not legitimate in light of the previous legal principles, since there is no legitimate ground for objection, as long as the court below's decision on the objection period has been justified.
Justices Go Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)