significance of Article 5 of the Farmland Reform Act

According to the provisions of Article 33 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act, the term "a farmer who cultivates the relevant farmland as of the date of its promulgation" refers to a farmer who actually occupies and cultivates the relevant farmland as of June 21, 4282, except that determined by the return, adjustment, or ruling of farmland right, which is the date of its promulgation under Article 11 of the Farmland Reform Act, and therefore, the term "a farmer who cultivates the relevant farmland as of the date of its promulgation" refers to a farmer who cultivates the relevant farmland as of the same date, so long as the farmer actually occupies and cultivates the farmland as of the date of its promulgation or the right to cultivate before its promulgation is not determined by the return, adjustment, or ruling, it shall not be deemed as a self-owned farmland, and it shall

Article 33 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act, Article 11 of the Farmland Reform Act

Attorney Yang Han-soo et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant

Kim Yong-Nam

Jeonju District Court of the first instance, Jeonju District Court of the second instance, Gwangju High Court of the second instance, 54 civil defense150 delivered on November 18, 1954

The final appeal is dismissed.

Costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The ground of appeal No. 1 is that the court below's decision that the defendant's right to cultivate the farmland was not de factoly distributed to the 2-year old farmer's 4th anniversary of the fact that the 2-year old farmland was de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto and de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto.

The second point is that the court below's ruling that the plaintiff had no capacity to purchase farmland for the second half or more of June, 21 to justify the defendant's act on the ground that the plaintiff had no capacity to purchase farmland for the second half or more of June, and that the defendant had no capacity to purchase farmland for the second five or more years, and that the court below's ruling that the plaintiff had no capacity to purchase farmland for the second five or more years, which was the sole basis for the conclusion that the plaintiff had no capacity to purchase farmland for the second five or more years (see, e.g., the court below's ruling that the plaintiff had no capacity to purchase farmland for the second half or more because of the fact that the plaintiff had no capacity to purchase farmland for the second five or more years, and that the plaintiff had no capacity to purchase the farmland for the second half or more years, and that the court below's ruling that the plaintiff had no capacity to purchase farmland for the second half or more of March, 282, which was the basis for the second instance court's ruling that the plaintiff had no capacity to purchase the farmland for the second half or more.

However, according to the provisions of Article 33 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act, "A farmer who cultivates the farmland in question as of the date of its promulgation" refers to a farmer who occupies and cultivates the farmland in question as of June 21, 4282, except for those determined by the return, adjustment, or ruling of farmland in question as of the date of its promulgation, which is the date of its promulgation, so long as the farmland in question is actually occupied and cultivated as of the date of its promulgation, or the return, adjustment, or ruling of farmland in question has not been determined before the date of its promulgation, the farmland in question cannot be deemed as farmland in question or even if the cancellation of the contract for farming is made, and it shall not be purchased by the government in accordance with Article 5 (2) 2 (b) of the same Act. According to the facts established in the original judgment, the defendant continuously cultivated the land in question as of the date of its promulgation, so long as the period of return, adjustment, or ruling of farmland in question has not been finalized before the date of its promulgation, or there is no agreement between the plaintiff and the plaintiff's 15 (2).

Therefore, the final appeal is without merit and it is so decided as per Disposition by Article 401 and Article 95 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Justices Kim Dong-dong (Presiding Justice) Acting Justice Kim Jae-ho on the present allocation of Kim Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)