Where the distribution of farmland is void as a matter of course;

Unless it has been determined as a distributed farmland and distributed, there is no institution that can cancel the distribution of farmland.

Article 5 subparagraph 2 of the Farmland Reform Act, Articles 11 and 7 of the Farmland Reform Act, Articles 12 and 21 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act

Isleleap

Kim Jong-seok

Seoul High Court Decision 58 civilian 184 delivered on September 25, 1958, Seoul High Court Decision 2008Da184 delivered on September 25, 1958

Since farmland falling under subparagraph 2 of Article 5 of the Farmland Reform Act is purchased at the same time on June 21, 1949 by the Government, and since a group of farmland is determined by the procedure under Article 11 and Article 21 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act and distributed to farmers, etc., an agency that may cancel the distribution of farmland shall not exist. However, if there is an error in the procedure, there is difference in the distribution procedure between ordinary farmland and orchard under Article 7 (1) 3 of the same Act and the previous farmland distribution procedure, it shall be deemed that the distribution of farmland shall be automatically null and void. According to the records of this case and the original decision of the court below, the plaintiff has no legitimate authority to cancel the distribution of farmland to the plaintiff on September 22, 195, and the decision of the court below as to whether to cancel the distribution of farmland within the previous farmland under the premise that the plaintiff had no authority to cancel the distribution of farmland within the previous farmland under the jurisdiction of the head of the Si/Gun/Gu on the ground that the plaintiff had no authority to cancel the distribution of farmland and the previous farmland distribution.

Justices Go Jae-ho (Presiding Justice) Gyeong-ho (Presiding Justice)