The farmland allocated to Article 15 of the Farmland Industry Promotion Act refers to the inheritance of farmland as a separate acid" means the provision that the heir succeeds to the ownership of the distributed farmland in the case of the death of the distributor of farmland, and the existence of the heir's mental capacity or cultivation capacity does not have any relation to the farmland inheritance capacity.

Cho Hosan et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellee-appellant

Kim Jong-hoon et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 70Na2150 decided May 12, 1971

Each appeal shall be dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

Defendant 2’s ground of appeal by Justice Park Tae-ok

1. Determination as to the ground of appeal No. 4 in the Grounds of Appeal No. 1 and No. 1 as well as No. 1 as Dong-dong Industrial Co., Ltd.

Since the above defendants' act of purchasing land at issue with the above defendants in the original judgment was no more than 643-2, 771, and list (6) through (13) of Dong-dong, Incheon, which is the lot number prior to the merger of land, and the defendant's act of purchasing land at issue with the above defendants was no more likely to affect the above defendant's purchase of the land under the above defendant's name, and the defendant's act of purchasing land at issue with the defendant's name was no more than 3618, and the defendant's act of purchasing the land at issue was no more likely to have any dispute over the plaintiff's ownership transfer registration under the defendant's name and no more than 174-2, 1963, and the defendant's act of purchasing the land at issue was no more likely to have any dispute over the plaintiff's ownership transfer registration at issue with the court below's decision to the effect that the defendant purchased the land at issue under the above 17th, 1963.

Defendant 2’s agent’s ground of appeal No. 2

As seen earlier, the original judgment determined that the non-party 1 purchased the land of this case from the plaintiff cannot be acknowledged. The defendant is improper to discuss the premise that the non-party 1 purchased the land of this case from the plaintiff, and there is no error in law in the decision of the court below that deemed the plaintiff 1 as the farmer. Thus, the plaintiff 1 cannot be employed as the plaintiff 1.

Determination on the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 by Defendant Kim Jong-tae;

As the court of first instance cites the judgment of the court of first instance, although the appellant omitted the judgment on the evidence No. 7 submitted by the court of first instance, according to the records, Eul evidence No. 7 denies the authenticity of its establishment, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge its establishment, so the court of first instance did not examine and determine the above documents at the court of first instance, and there is no influence on the conclusion

The judgment on the grounds of appeal Nos. 3 and 1, 2, and 3 by the litigation performer of the Republic of Korea, as well as the grounds of appeal Nos. 1, 2, and 3 by the defendant

Even if the court below reviewed the evidence preparation and the process or contents of fact-finding conducted through the review of the records, it is legitimate, and there is no error in the rules of evidence in violation of the logical rules or the rule of experience, or in the incomplete hearing, and the arguments cannot be adopted merely because they discussed the whole matters of the court below concerning the determination of evidence preparation and the fact-finding.

Judgment on the first ground for appeal by Defendant Republic of Korea

Based on evidence, the court below recognized the fact that the above Kim Tae-hun paid the amount of redemption as provided for in the Farmland Reform Act, since the above title of the plaintiff Lee Tae-tae had been distributed to him pursuant to the Farmland Reform Act, and it is clear that the plaintiff Kim Tae-hun was not recognized as acquiring the above farmland pursuant to Article 173 of the excessive government law, and there is no ground for appeal on the premise that the farmland was acquired pursuant to the excessive government law. The court below did not have any reasonable ground for appeal on the real estate stated in the annexed list (5) 71 square and Dong (6) through 13, among the real estate stated in the annexed list (5) 771 square and Dong (173). The court below found that the farmland Reform Act was enforced in order to fully pay the amount of redemption before the payment was made pursuant to Article 173 of the South Do Government Act. In this case, there is no error in finding the fact, and in this case, there is no error in the conclusion that the farmland distribution under the Farmland Reform Act was made lawfully, and there is no reasonable ground for appeal.

The judgment on the second ground for appeal;

According to Article 15 of the Farmland Reform Act, since the farmland distributed is additionally inherited in addition to the farmland distributed, if a person who received and distributed farmland dies, his/her heir succeeds to ownership of the distributed farmland shall be deemed to belong to the farm in this case, and if it is obvious that the heir succeeds to ownership of the farmland in this case, and there is no error in this Article, and the heir's intention or ability to cultivate is no relation with the ability of the heir to inherit the farmland. Therefore, there

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed without merit. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)