(a) The due tin law which serves as the basis for calculating the amount of compensation for tide embankments cannot be based on the government receipt price determined in 1948;

(b) The obligations of the Government for the payment of the annual amount of compensation for purchased farmland, etc. are delayed on the date after May 31 of the following year, respectively.

A. The facilities of this Article, subparagraph 2 (a) of the same Article, as a tide embankment, should be compensated by the market price at the time when they were sold to the State. As such, the new tide price of the tide embankment and the price at the time of the tide tide shall be calculated on the basis of 1949, which is the purchase year, as of June 21, 1949, as of the date of the purchase, are the same and the current government grain law applicable to the present as of June 21, 1949, is not yet determined, and therefore, it is the government revenue amount determined in the year 1948.

(b) The obligations of the Government for the payment of the annual amount of compensation for purchased farmland, etc. are delayed on the date after May 31 of the following year, respectively.

Article 2 (2) of the Farmland Reform Act, Article 7 (1) 3 of the Farmland Reform Act

Supreme Court Decision 66Da2584 delivered on November 25, 1969, Sept. 23, 1969; 68Da1526 delivered on Sept. 23, 1969; 69Da1526 delivered on Oct. 14, 1969; 71Da56 delivered on Sep. 26, 1971

Plaintiff

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 68Na1394 delivered on December 21, 1970

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

(1) We examine the Defendant’s litigation performer and his attorney’s first ground of appeal;

Article 2 (2) (A) of the Farmland Reform Act provides that even if the head of the Gun does not list the facilities annexed to the embankment, it shall be deemed that the above facilities fall under the structures listed in Article 2 (2) (a) of the said Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 68Da1986, Nov. 25, 1969; Supreme Court Decision 70Da1674, Sept. 22, 1970). Since the head of the Gun issued the above facilities with the aim of recognizing the ownership of each annexed piece of farmland under Article 3 (2) of the Act on Special Measures for the Rearrangement of Farmland, it shall not be deemed that there was an error of law by the court below that the above facilities were installed within the 2nd of the 1st century and the above annexed piece of Farmland Conservation Act, and that there was no illegality of law by the court below as to the compensation of each annexed piece of farmland, which was recorded in the 1st of the above annexed piece of Farmland Conservation Act.

The issue of attacking a judgment can not be seen as groundless.

(2) As to the ground of appeal No. 2

Since Article 2 (2) (a) of the Farmland Reform Act, such as tide embankments, is a previous precedent that the state compensates the state at the market price at the time of sale, it is necessary to calculate the new tide price of the tide embankment and the current tide law based on the 1949-year period for the purchase year. On June 21, 1949, the current time of the purchase, the legal grain of the tide that is applied to the present as of June 21, 1949 is the government receipt price determined in the 1948 (the current time of June 21, 1949 is not yet determined). Therefore, there is no error of law as to the theory of lawsuit in the judgment of the court below in accordance with the above criteria and calculation, that is, there is no ground for attacking the original judgment (the precedents pointed out in the theory of the lawsuit are not appropriate).

(3) As to the ground of appeal No. 3

According to Article 8 subparagraph 2 of the Farmland Reform Act, the compensation for land-based securities is equally divided into five years and paid at the rate calculated at the statutory price of par value agricultural products each year. According to Article 27 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the above statutory price of agricultural products shall be determined by the government each year according to the government wholesale price of the agricultural products. According to Article 28 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the payment deadline of the annual amount of compensation based on the above agricultural products shall be within May 31 from this end. Thus, there is no error of law by the court below in ordering the payment of interest in arrears, such as the theory of lawsuit. Thus, there is no argument of attacking the original judgment as an opposing opinion.

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

The judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge)