Cases of law by misunderstanding the legal principles concerning the distribution of farmland and the revocation of confession;

In preparing a schedule of farmland distributed to each farm household of distributed farmland, if the lot number of the farmland to be distributed and the usual number of the farmland to be distributed are inconsistent with that of the public record, it shall be indicated to the extent that it is objectively impossible for the interested party to raise an objection, and if the farmland is distributed to the extent that it is not possible to raise an objection, the distribution of the farmland is void

Article 22 of the Farmland Reform Act, Article 32 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act, Article 261 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff 1 and nine others

Korea

Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 66Na3051 decided March 27, 1968, Seoul High Court Decision 66Na3051 decided March 27, 1968

We reverse the original judgment.

This case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

Defendant 1’s ground of appeal and each of the grounds of appeal by Defendant 1 and Defendant 1’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor

According to the judgment of the court below, since the defendant's assertion that the above farmland was distributed to the plaintiffs in the first instance court, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the above confessions were against the truth, and because the plaintiff's mistake was made, it should be revoked for the following reasons. In other words, the court below found that the plaintiff's or the plaintiff's tenant cultivated the land before 8.15 years old, which is the farmland belonging to the court, and that there was no error of law in law as to the distribution of the farmland, since the defendant's assertion that the above farmland was not distributed to the plaintiffs, the court below found that there was no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the distribution of the farmland, and since there was no error of law as to the distribution of the farmland, the court below found that there was no error in the law as to the distribution of the farmland by the defendant's statement to the extent that there was no error in the law as to the distribution of the farmland, and since there was no error in the law as to the distribution of the farmland by the defendant's statement to the court below.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating judges.

Supreme Court Judge Lee Young-subop (Presiding Judge)