Whether this Act applies to farmland reclaimed after the implementation of the Agricultural Re-Re- Reform Act;

Since Article 19 (2) of the Farmland Reform Act shall not apply to farmland reclaimed after the date of promulgation of the Farmland Reform Act, it shall not apply to the sale and purchase of such farmland.

Article 19(2) of the Farmland Reform Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

Cheongju District Court Decision 66Na66 delivered on November 2, 1966

The original judgment shall be reversed, and

The case shall be remanded to the Cheongju District Court Panel Division.

The plaintiff's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, even if the plaintiff purchased the land of this case from the original owner on April 10, 1964 and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the plaintiff on September 27, 1965, the land category of this case is farmland used in rivers or in real farming field, and the plaintiff passed the registration of ownership transfer in this case without proof under Article 19 (2) of the Farmland Reform Act, so the registration of transfer in the name of the plaintiff is invalid, and therefore, the plaintiff cannot be deemed as the owner of this case.

However, according to the reasoning of the plaintiff's argument in the records, since the land of this case was reclaimed after the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, and according to the contents of the witness examination protocol by the non-party witness witness of the court below, it is consistent with the plaintiff's above argument, since Article 25-2 of the Farmland Reform Act cannot be applied to the farmland reclaimed after the date of its promulgation, Article 19 (2) of the same Act cannot be applied to the sale of such farmland. Thus, the decision of the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim for the same reason as above without examining when the land of this case was reclaimed and without examining when the land of this case was reclaimed, it affected the conclusion of the judgment, since the decision of the court below was erroneous in the incomplete trial or the lack of reason.

It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices of the Supreme Court Dog-gu (Presiding Judge) Dog-Jak and Mag-gu Mag-gu