Main Issues

The method of filing an objection against a disposition of change in the purpose of use of farmland by the Government under Article 6 (1) 4 of the Farmland Reform Act and an administrative litigation seeking confirmation of invalidity of such disposition

Summary of Judgment

A disposition of permission to change the purpose of use of farmland shall be subject to an administrative litigation even if it is sought to confirm the invalidity of the disposition on the ground that it is null and void, and it shall be filed with the competent court as a civil litigation against the conflicting interested parties via the reconsideration of the

[Reference Provisions]

Articles 22 and 6 (1) 4 of the Farmland Reform Act

Plaintiff-Appellant

Korea Coal Industry Corporation

Defendant-Appellee

Minister of Agriculture and Forestry

Intervenor-Appellee

Korea Refugee Council and 112 others

The court below

Seoul High Court Decision 63Gu190 delivered on June 15, 1965

Text

The appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined. Article 6 (1) 4 of the Farmland Reform Act provides that if the Government recognizes the need to change the purpose of use of farmland at the request of the Government, public organizations, or educational institutions, such farmland shall not be purchased by the Government. If the Government makes a disposition that approves the change of purpose of use under the above provision, interested parties who are dissatisfied with such disposition shall not appeal by administrative litigation, and must file a lawsuit with the competent court by civil litigation against the opposing interested parties under the provisions of Article 22 of the Farmland Reform Act (see Supreme Court Decision 4294No51 delivered on May 10, 1962). This is because, even if the Government recognizes the purpose of use of farmland, it shall not be deemed that there is a matter concerning the implementation of the Farmland Reform Act as stated in Article 22 (1) of the Farmland Reform Act. Thus, the Supreme Court's decision that the above change of purpose of use of farmland constitutes a ground for invalidation of a new decision, it shall not be deemed that it constitutes a ground for invalidation of a new decision as seen above.