[영농권지정처분무효확인][집31(3)특,64;공1983.7.15.(708),1019]
(a) Whether the government’s temporary cultivation of farmland constitutes idle farmland (affirmative)
(b) Where the head of a Gun takes a disposition to designate the cultivator by proxy, a letter of prior consultation;
(a) Land for which temporary cultivation is permitted under the condition that the Government would create a land without any public room, such as the registry, etc., in June 25, to be the bean cultivation complex and would not claim the right of annual rent under the condition that it would be one year, and that it would not claim the right of rent under this Section, shall be considered idle farmland for which there is no owner as provided in Article 10(1)2 of the Farmland Conservation and Utilization Act or even if there is no owner as provided in Article 10(2) of the same
(b) There is no legal basis to consult with the person who has already been designated as the cultivator and temporarily cultivated for a limited period of time before the head of the Gun takes a disposition to designate the cultivator as an agent pursuant to Article 10(1) of the Farmland Conservation and Utilization Act (the termination of the cultivation period) or to ask his opinion.
Article 10 (1) of the Farmland Preservation and Utilization Act
Plaintiff 1 and one other
Attorney Lee Dong-ho, Counsel for the defendant-appellant of Gyeonggi-do
Seoul High Court Decision 80Nu703 decided Nov. 4, 1981 (Supreme Court Decision 80Nu703 decided Nov. 4, 1981)
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.
We examine the plaintiffs' grounds of appeal.
1. According to the facts established by the court below, the area of 1,00 Won-gun, Gyeonggi-do is located within the civilian access control area adjacent to the above 1,50-gun, 1,50-gun, and the land within the said area was left away by lot as of June 25, since all of the public registers, etc. were not due to the failure of restoration, and the land was left away by lot as of sulfur free land without knowing the lot number, cadastre, boundary, etc., and the above land was created as a bean cultivation complex for the state expenses as part of the 1,50-year-old policy, and under the condition that the defendant would not claim any right to 1,50-year-old cultivation for the above 1,65-year-old land cultivation complex for the above 1,50-year-old land cultivation period from 17,000-year-old land development project for the above 1,71,000-year-old land development project for the above 197.
2. As duly determined by the court below, the court below rejected the plaintiffs' claims seeking confirmation of invalidity of the designation of the surrogate cultivator by the defendant on the ground that the land of this case was not idle farmland because it did not constitute idle farmland because it did not constitute idle farmland because it did not constitute idle farmland because the non-party and the plaintiffs were not owners under Article 10 (1) 2 of the Act on the Conservation and Use of Farmland, and were merely temporarily cultivated for a limited period as stated in its reasoning. It is just that the court below rejected the plaintiffs' claims seeking confirmation of invalidity of the designation of the surrogate cultivator by proxy on the ground that the land of this case was not idle farmland. There is no misapprehension
3. In addition, under Article 10(1) of the Farmland Preservation and Utilization Act, there is no legal ground for the head of the Gun to consult with the persons in the same status as the plaintiffs prior to the disposition of designating the surrogate cultivator, or to ask their opinions, so the Defendant’s designation of the surrogate cultivator at the time of the original edition does not constitute an unlawful act because it did not go through the above procedure, and there is no error like the theory of lawsuit in the judgment below, and the precedents of the party members cited as the ground for the violation of the precedent are different from the case, and thus, it is not appropriate for this case.
4. Ultimately, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are borne jointly by the losing parties. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice)