The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

According to the facts established by the court below, most of the land at issue in this case is one farmland, and part of the land is divided into dry field, orchard or orchard, residential area or scenic zone under the Urban Planning Act, and the remaining plaintiffs except the plaintiff 1 and the plaintiff are managed by delegation of management from the owner of each land. Thus, Article 5 (3) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Disposal of State and Public Property cannot be viewed as a mandatory provision in light of the purpose of Article 1 of the same Act, and it shall not be viewed as a flexible provision. Thus, even if the defendant sold the land through a general public auction without following the same provision, it shall not be deemed null and void. The plaintiff and the deceased non-party 2 as a de facto manager of the land in this case and there is no interest to seek nullification, and according to the provisions of Article 47 of the Urban Planning Act, it does not apply the Farmland Reform Act to the land designated as a residential area or scenic zone, and there is no need to apply the provisions of Article 19 (2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Disposal of State Property.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Supreme Court Judge Do-dong (Presiding Judge) Do-dong (Presiding Judge) Do-won Mab-Ba