[토지인도(반소)][집14(2)민,194]
The validity of the distribution of farmland, as it is in the distribution of farmland, without the procedure of determining the farmland.
The distribution of farmland without going through the resolution of the committee on the location of the farmland by the government office and the distribution of farmland without going through the resolution of the committee on the location of the farmland is the distribution of the distributed farmland.
Article 32 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act
Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)
Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)
Gwangju District Court Decision 65Na577 delivered on April 12, 1966
The original judgment shall be reversed, and
The case shall be remanded to the Panel Division of the Gwangju District Court.
In light of the first ground of appeal No. 1 of the counter-defendant, the original judgment was based on its reasoning, and the testimony of the non-party witness of the original judgment and the results of the verification of documents two times in the original judgment of the court below, considering the contents of Eul evidence No. 4. 8, the case was re-distribution of this case, and the location of this discussion was ○○○, Namnam Mining Group. However, at the time, the non-resident, who is the arable, was residing in the same △△△ branch, constitutes so-called cultivation, and thus, the case of farmland reform and temporary measures (the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry No. 3 of Oct. 19, 1950) and the outline of farmland reform administration (1960.8.8.) and each relevant provision of the Farmland Reform Act, the above △△△△ branch having jurisdiction over the seat of the cultivator of the farmland in question, which started re-distribution of the farmland in question and announced it in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Farmland Reform Act and confirmed the distribution to the defendant.
However, in order to determine the distribution of farmland, based on a site survey conducted in accordance with the farmland register and its basis pursuant to Article 32 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act, the farmland site owner shall prepare a daily table for each farm household's allocated farmland after the resolution of the farmland committee at the seat of the farmland and make a 10-day inundation in the seat of the farm. Even if the original judgment is approved, the government agency at the seat of the farmland and made a farmland report at the committee at the seat of the farmland and made a resolution at the committee at the seat of the farmland. Thus, the land in this case was distributed without the procedure to determine the distribution of the farmland, so the distribution of the farmland is naturally null and void (see Supreme Court Decision 65Da1505 delivered on October 26, 1965) and the judgment at the seat of the farmland in this case is examined, and there is no statement to the effect that the distribution of farmland can be made through the resolution of the farmland committee at the seat of the farm and the committee at the seat of the farmland.
Therefore, the original judgment is erroneous in the misunderstanding of the legal principles of Article 32 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act and affected the judgment. Therefore, the argument is reasonable, and the original judgment shall not be exempted from the reversal without changing the judgment on the remaining grounds for appeal.
Therefore, the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Gwangju District Court which is the original judgment. It is so decided as per Disposition by all participating judges.
Supreme Court Judge Madung (Presiding Judge) Kim Gung-bun and Madlebro