Whether it is necessary to change the purpose of use of farmland by the Government and subjective judgment of an institution which intends to change the purpose of use;

Recognition as to whether it is necessary to change the purpose of use of farmland is consistent with the public interest, and it is not based on the subjective judgment of an institution that wishes to change the purpose of use.

Article 6 (1) 4 of the Farmland Reform Act, Article 9 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act

National Institute of Research, a foundation

Isora

Seoul District Court Decision 62Na702 delivered on February 26, 1963

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

With respect to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 3 of the plaintiff's attorney, it is necessary to change the purpose of use of farmland to the public interest, and it is clear in light of the provisions of Article 6 (1) 4 of the Farmland Reform Act that the government does not intend to change the purpose of use, and it is not based only on the subjective judgment of the agency that wants to change the purpose of use. In addition, it is not clear in light of the provisions of Article 6 (1) 4 of the Farmland Reform Act, and it is 7 years or passed as it is after the previous approval from the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry was granted from the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry. It does not comply with the necessary requirements that the original judgment should be carried out within 3 years as provided in Article 9 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act, regardless of the reason why it is impossible to implement the purpose of use of farmland as the original permission. Thus, it is not reasonable

The grounds of appeal No. 2

This case's real estate is farmland not only at the time of enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act but also at the time of distributing this case's farmland. It is a fact established by the original judgment that part of this case's real estate is not farmland but also at the time of distributing this case's farmland. The argument that the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry approves the change of the purpose of use of this case's real estate and there is no effect to approve the change of the purpose of use of this case's real estate and the plaintiff who is the owner can dispose of it voluntarily. In the end, the decision of the court below on fact finding is due to the administrative order of the Seoul Special Metropolitan

Grounds of appeal Nos. 4,6

It has already been explained that there was no illegality in the original judgment that the cancellation of the permission disposition cannot be deemed null and void as a matter of course. As such, since the permission to change the purpose of use of the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry was revoked, the farmland in this case had already been purchased to the Government at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, and therefore, there was no interest in the lawsuit in this case because the plaintiff is not the owner, but the plaintiff is not the interested person under the Farmland Reform Act, and therefore there is no interest in the lawsuit in this case, and therefore there is no illegality in the theory of the original judgment as long as

The grounds of appeal No. 5

As explained above, it is true that the land in this case was farmland on which the original judgment was established, and the Urban Planning Act was promulgated on January 20, 1962 and enforced retroactively at the time of enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, so there is no error in the original judgment that the farmland in this case was already purchased at the time of enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, and there is no error in the original judgment that rejected the plaintiff's claim on the ground that there was no legal interest in the lawsuit that the plaintiff did not have any legal interest in the claim against the defendant without determining the validity of the revocation of distribution.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges pursuant to Article 400 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) of the Republic of Korea shall have the right to balle of the Red Madle, the right to baloman