The validity of the distribution of farmland made without publicly announcing the sight of the farmland distributed to each farm household;

The distribution of farmland without the notice of sight prescribed in this section is null and void a year.

Article 32 of the Farmland Reform Act

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and two others

Seoul High Court Decision 66Na950 delivered on May 4, 1967

The original judgment shall be reversed, and

The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The plaintiff's representative's ground of appeal No. 2 was examined, and the original judgment is based on its reasoning, and the plaintiff is the plaintiff who cultivated the land at the time when the Farmland Reform Act enters into force, and although the defendant 1 is not a farmer at the time of this case's own land, the defendant 1 does not have cultivated the land at that time, and despite the fact that the plaintiff is not a farmer at the time of this case's own land, the defendant 1's application for distribution of this case's land is pretended to be a defective farmer, and without the public announcement of the distribution of the land (in accordance with the whole purport of the plaintiff's oral argument, it is clear that the public announcement of the distribution of the land by farming is made at the time of the plaintiff's own land's own land, and the plaintiff's application for distribution of this case's land on February 1, 1953 is illegal and invalid. Thus, the plaintiff's application for distribution of this case's land is not just for the plaintiff's own land, but for the above reasons to be dismissed.

However, if farmland is distributed without a specific publication as stipulated in Article 32 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act, the distribution is naturally null and void, and despite the fact that the court below did not make a decision on the plaintiff's claim that the court below did not make a specific publication on the sight table of the farmland distributed to each farm in the farmland distribution procedure in this case. Therefore, the argument is reasonable, and the judgment of the court below is not dismissed.

Therefore, the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court, which is the original judgment, and it is so decided as per Disposition by all participating Justices.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Mag-kim Red Corkhion of Kimchi