The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court upheld the first instance judgment that accepted the claim for damages against the Defendant by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the designated parties (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) based on the former part of Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act on the following grounds:

In other words, even though the deceased I (hereinafter “the deceased”) was lawfully distributed farmland, the deceased or his inheritors were unable to complete the repayment and registration of the farmland price for the above distributed farmland until December 31, 1998 when three years have passed since the enforcement date of the former Farmland Act (amended by Act No. 4817, Dec. 22, 1994; and enacted January 1, 1996).

The Plaintiffs, who are the inheritors of the deceased, had an objective obstacle to the exercise of the right to distribute the above distributed farmland or to exercise the right to claim damages due to the loss thereof until the decision of re-determination in the civil re-determination (Seoul High Court Decision 68Hun-24, Dec. 6, 1989) became final and conclusive, to the effect that other co-inheritors or their bereaved family members of the deceased, who were subject to the judgment in civil re-determination (Seoul High Court Decision 68Hun-Ba24, Dec. 6, 1989), together with other co-inheritors or their bereaved family members, would revoke the truth-finding decision and the said judgment of civil re-determination (Seoul High Court Decision 2012Na64

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not exhaust all necessary deliberations as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal, or erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the establishment of claim for damages due to tort, thereby affecting the conclusion

2. On the ground of appeal No. 2, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, determined on December 1, 1998 as stipulated in Article 3 of the Addenda to the Farmland Act.