[위토분배무효확인][집12(1)민,179]
The nature of the application for permission of the use of the farmland under Article 12 of the Enforcement Rule of the Farmland Reform Act on the land above the land falling under Article 6 (1) 7 of the Farmland Reform Act;
This article is an award provision.
Article 6 (1) of the Farmland Reform Act, Article 7 of the Enforcement Rule of the Farmland Reform Act
Llock clans (Attorney Lee Yong-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
Lee Sung-sung et al. (Attorney Lee Young-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Seoul Civil District Court Decision 62Na323 delivered on October 4, 1963
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendants.
The defendants' legal representative's grounds of appeal are examined as follows.
The issue is that the court below's interpretation of the above Enforcement Rule, which was delegated by Article 26 of the Farmland Reform Act, as an order to protect a grave under Article 6 (1) 7 of the Farmland Reform Act, is unlawful in interpreting the above Enforcement Rule, which is a provision for giving lessons to the head of the Gu where farmland is located, within 20 days from April 28, 1950 to 20 days from the date of promulgation of the Enforcement Rule, with respect to farmland within two half days from April 28, 1950, and the application for submission after the expiration of the period and the above-mentioned disposition cannot be effective under the same law, although it is specified in the judgment of 4291No334, July 9, 1959.
However, if the farmland in question falls under Article 6 (1) 7 of the Farmland Reform Act, the land is excluded from the purchase by the government under Article 5 of the same Act as a matter of course by law, and there is no need for any procedure to exclude the land from the purchase by the government, and Article 12 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, which is prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, is amended to the Ordinance of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry as the matters to be prescribed by the Presidential Decree, and thus, the adjudication of the court below is just and not erroneous.
The second ground for appeal is examined.
Although the court below concluded that the land of this case was a memorial stone to the second body of the plaintiff's clan, the plaintiff made a statement on August 2, 1963 as the third body of the grave at the pleading on August 2, 1963, the plaintiff made a correction as the second body of the grave on the 23th day of the same month, or on the 23th day of the same month, in light of the fact that the new drawing of Goyang-gun, Gyeonggi-do around November 1, 1962 was moved to the port Ri, the court below should make an example of the number of the plaintiff's clans and the area of the above body. Thus, the court below should make it clear ex officio, but it erred in the misunderstanding of facts due to the psychological failure.
However, this case's land is a legally established fact by the court below, and there is no error in the court below's decision-making process, even though the records do not contain any error in the court below's decision-making process, it cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal since it is merely nothing more than the part of the court below's decision-making process.
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 on the bench.
Judge Do-dong (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court