[2] The case holding that farmland, which is merely an urbanized price for the surrounding day, and only an owner of farmland, located in the neighboring country twice a year, does not constitute farmland, which is a grave land

[2] The case holding that if the land category has been transferred to a general residential area under the urban planning but the surrounding areas are fully urbanizationed, and the farmer has cultivated beer or beer, etc., and it is merely a three-year seed of grave, such as a tombstone, etc., to the extent that the farmer merely carried out the cultivation cost, the land cannot be deemed as farmland which is a grave for protecting and managing the grave, on the ground that it cannot be deemed as farmland for raising expenses for the protection and management of the grave

1. On the second ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the land of this case was originally owned by the number of non-party roads, but the registration of ownership transfer was completed under the name of non-party Kim Dong-dong as of September 3, 1974, and the above Kim Dong-dong died on the ground of the consultation division, and that the land of this case was transferred to the land category, but it was located within about 2 km from the center of Gwangju City to the general residential area under urban planning as of September 13, 1984, and it was now incorporated into the above 19-year residential area under urban planning as of September 13, 1984, and 3 pages were surrounded by the apartment complex, general residential complex, commercial building, etc., and the 1-year residential area adjoined to the above 1-year commercial area and housing, and there was no violation of the law by allowing the non-party 1 to cultivate the above land as of June 29, 199.

In addition, the court below stated that the land of this case, along with the facts stated in the judgment, seems to have been planted free of charge by the plaintiff and the literature intermediary ownership dispute and the tax issues of this case, because it is not resolved, but it is nothing more than an additional judgment. Thus, even if there were errors as pointed out in the grounds of appeal on this point, it cannot be said that there is an error that affects the conclusion of the judgment, and thus, the ground of appeal pointing this out is without merit.

2. On the first ground for appeal

In light of the fact that the current Civil Act provides that the owner of a grave belongs to a specific grave, which is a ground for the protection, management or use of the grave, the farmland of 600 square meters or less under Article 8-2 (2) 2 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (wholly amended by Act No. 5193, Dec. 30, 196) shall be the farmland of this case, which is the farmland of 600 square meters or less under the Civil Act used for the purpose of raising expenses for the protection, management or removal of the grave (see Supreme Court Decision 67Da114, Jul. 18, 1967; Supreme Court Decision 93Nu18648, Feb. 9, 196; Supreme Court Decision 200Da1138, Feb. 30, 2007). Thus, the court below's reasoning that the above farmland of this case should not be regarded as the farmland of this case, which is the farmland of this case, should not be considered as the ground for the above cultivation or the farmland of appeal.

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

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)