[부동산소유권이전등기][집10(3)민,169]
The validity of the decision to revoke the distribution of farmland by an objection raised under Article 22 of the Farmland Reform Act with the lapse of the period of objection;
Where a lawsuit is filed by asserting that the distribution of farmland, which is not farmland, at the time of the promulgation of this Act, shall be null and void due to any defect or defect in the re-adjudication or appeal procedure.
Article 22 of the Farmland Reform Act
Fluorma
Shin Young-jin et al.
Busan District Court Decision 61Na653 delivered on January 15, 1962, Busan District Court Decision 61Na653 delivered on January 15, 1962
We reverse the original judgment.
The case shall be remanded to the Daegu High Court.
The grounds of appeal by the plaintiff's attorney are as stated in the appellate brief attached in attached Form.
Judgment on ground of appeal No. 1
According to the statement of facts cited in the judgment of the court of first instance, if non-party 2 received farmland distribution as to this case from the defendants in Busan City, it is clear that the cancellation of the above distribution decision is null and void as a matter of law due to the defect in the period for raising an objection against the cancellation of the distribution decision. Nevertheless, the court below's rejection of the plaintiff's claim against non-party 2 under the premise that the cancellation of the distribution of farmland as to this case against the non-party 2 is effective, it shall not be erroneous as pointed out in the arguments. According to Article 22 of the Farmland Reform Act, the interested parties who have an objection to the farmland distribution cannot be seen as the matters concerning the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, and the period for objection against the cancellation of the decision can not be seen as null and void as a matter of law because the court below's rejection of the above decision cannot be justified as a matter of course because it did not stipulate that the above decision would be invalid for the purpose of the cancellation of the decision as to the farmland Reform Act's expiration of the period.
Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who participated in the court below in order to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal and to have the court below hold a new trial again.
The judges of the Supreme Court, the two judges of the two judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Dog-Jak, and the Mag-man Mag-bun Lap