The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

Although farmland purchased by the Government pursuant to subparagraph 2 (a) (b) of Article 5 of the Farmland Reform Act is farmland of a farmer, it shall be deemed that it is farmland that is not self-sufficient by the farmer at the time when the Farmland Reform Act enters into force. In this case, even though the farmland owned by the farmer is within the extent of use by the Farmland Reform Act, it does not affect the above conclusion. According to the arguments, the total area of the farmland owned by the three copies at the time when the Farmland Reform Act enters into force is problematic in this case, and even if the total area of the farmland was 510 square meters at the time when the plaintiff cultivated at that time, it shall not be 2050 square meters, even if it was 510 square meters at that time, which is not purchased by the Government, but it shall not be adopted since it is an independent opinion of the appellant's agent. Accordingly, it is justifiable to view the above 510 square meters at that time after the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, and therefore, it is not clear that the plaintiff's title to the above farmland reform was null and void.

Therefore, this appeal is dismissed in entirety. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

In this judgment, the opinions of the involved judges are consistent.

The judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) of the Republic of Korea shall have the authority to transfer a red net holiday.