Procedures for cancelling a disposition of distribution to farmland farmers who violated the Farmland Reform Act and distributing the farmland to others;

In full view of the provisions of Articles 18, 19, and 20 of the Farmland Reform Act, even if a farmer of farmland commits an act in violation of the Farmland Reform Act, or neglects to pay a repayment, the Government shall receive the return of distributed farmland in accordance with the procedures prescribed by the same Act and distribute it again pursuant to the same Act, and if the Government voluntarily cancels the disposition of distribution and distributes distributed farmland to others without following such procedures, it is prohibited to distribute distributed farmland to others, and the government's disposition in violation of the same shall be null and void.

Articles 18, 19, and 20 of the Farmland Reform Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

Jeonju District Court of First Instance (4289No237) Gunsan Branch Court of the District Court of First Instance

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

To authorize this case's compulsory execution.

The lower court’s decision to suspend compulsory execution No. 221 of the 4289 is revoked.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff at the first and second instances.

The judgment of this court may be provisionally executed only under paragraphs (2), (3) and (4) of the text.

The defendant's legal representative sought a ruling of the Dong area Nos. 1, 2 and 5 of the disposition, and the plaintiff's legal representative sought a ruling of dismissal of prosecution. The defendant's legal representative stated that the Government commissioned the cultivation of the farmland to the plaintiff because the defendant was transferred to the plaintiff's legal representative, and that the defendant's legal representative submitted evidence Nos. 6 and 7 of the disposition, and that the farmland was distributed to the non-party but was transferred to the non-party, and returned to the government, the government re-distribution of the farmland to the defendant pursuant to Article 20 of the Farmland Reform Act, and the defendant paid the repayment from 4283 to 4286 of the disposition. The defendant denied the defendant's objection farming among the plaintiff's assertion, and the plaintiff's legal representative is identical to the non-party's judgment that recognized only the establishment of the Gong No. 2, 3, 5-1, 2, 6, and 7 of the above evidence No. 5-1, 6, and 7 of the judgment.

Since this farmland was distributed to the non-party and it returned to the government, the government begins to cultivate the farmland from 4287 to the defendant on the ground that the plaintiff purchased the farmland from the defendant under Article 20 of the Farmland Reform Act, and rejected the defendant's cultivation, so a lawsuit demanding the plaintiff to refrain from growing the farmland for confirmation of existence of right to cultivate (No. 29 of the Jeonju District Court 4287, Militarysan Branch Court 4287) was filed against the plaintiff, and then a final and conclusive judgment in favor of the defendant was issued on April 6, 4289, and there is no dispute between the parties regarding compulsory execution on this farmland, it is clear that the government's claim to revoke the farmland from the 20th executive branch court or from the 160th executive branch court of the judgment, which had already been issued with respect to this farmland, was in violation of the Farmland Reform Act, and thus, it cannot be viewed that there was a violation of the law by the plaintiff's 19th executive branch court of the farmland distribution of this farmland.

Despite the fact that the plaintiff's main claim for this case is without merit, the original judgment which cited it is unfair, and the indictment for this case is reasonable. Therefore, the decision is rendered in accordance with Articles 386, 89, 96, and 548 (1) and (2) of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Judgment of the court below]