Special Cases concerning the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act (Presidential Decree No. 1360, Apr. 10, 1958) and the enforcement time of the Farmland Reform Act for farmland located in the Suwon-gu.

The East Order stipulates that part of the distribution procedure, etc. shall be different from the farmland located in the water welfare district located in the area of 38 South and North Korea, and it shall not be viewed that the Farmland Reform Act shall be enforced with respect to the farmland located in the water welfare district only by the Dong Order (the change of the Supreme Court Decision No. 6293, Dec. 7, 612; No. 915, Dec. 4293; No. 6293, Dec. 16, 612).

Article 74(20) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea; Article 5(29) of the Farmland Reform Act

Jeon Jae-ro

Man-su et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 65Na66 delivered on June 25, 1965, the Chuncheon District Court Decision 65Na66 delivered on June 25, 1965

The original judgment shall be reversed, and

the case is remanded to the Chuncheon District Court Panel Division.

Defendant 2’s ground of appeal No. 2

The original judgment is judged on the premise that Article 5 (1) 2 of the Farmland Reform Act applies to farmland located in the Suwon Welfare Zone on April 10, 1958, which is the date of the enforcement of the farmland Reform Act (Presidential Decree No. 1360, Apr. 10, 1958). However, the above Presidential Decree is clear in the law, that it is a provision that the procedure for distribution of farmland located in the Suwon Welfare Zone is different from that of the farmland located in the Suwon Welfare Zone, and that it is not considered that the farmland located in the Suwon Welfare Zone is implemented in accordance with the Presidential Decree.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on special cases concerning the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act and the Farmland Reform Act, and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, while making a decision on the fact that the plaintiff, who was a propat at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, did not self-influence in the case of the farmland located in the Suwon Welfare Zone, was able to decide whether or not the farmland as a non-influence was sold to the Government by deliberation and determination on whether or not he was self-influenced due to his own external circumstances, or whether or not the farmland as a non-influenced by the government, and further making a decision on whether or not the farmland as a non-influenced by the above opinion without any deliberation and determination on this point. The court below

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges, except for the following separate opinions by the judges of the Supreme Court and by the Red Circuit as follows.

The opinions of Chinese judges of the Supreme Court are as follows.

Since the Special Cases concerning the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act, No. 1360, promulgated on April 10, 1958, which was enforced by the Presidential Decree No. 1360, only the Special Cases concerning the Farmland Reform Act has been prescribed for the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act, and even though the Farmland Reform Act had been enforced on June 21, 1949, it would not affect the validity of the Farmland Reform Act which was enforced on the date of its promulgation. As such, Article 29 of the Farmland Reform Act was enforced on June 21, 1949, the Act will be enforced across the nation as a matter of principle, but it would be difficult to say that only the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act was temporarily interrupted on the 38 North Korea, which was enforced on the above Presidential Decree, and it would be difficult to say that the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act had been enforced on the 197th anniversary of the enforcement date of the Farmland Reform Act, and it would be difficult to say that there was an error in the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act, which was enforced on the 197th.

The separate opinion of the judge of the Supreme Court is as follows: (a) since the territory of the Republic of Korea is the whole of the Korean Peninsula and its accessory islands as provided in Article 3 of the Constitution, the effect of the Constitution extends to the whole of the islands annexed to the Korean Peninsula; (b) however, there are cases where the National Assembly Act, such as the rule of law, has been interpreted to have a provision that it is limited to an area in which the administrative power of the Republic of Korea is practically restricted to an area that actually affects the administrative power of the Republic of Korea, and its effect is limited to an area that actually affects the administrative power of the Republic of Korea. The Act on the Election of National Assembly members is enforced only in the area where the administrative power of the Republic of Korea is actually under the administrative power of the Republic of Korea and the Act on the Temporary Measures for Administrative Areas adjacent to the Sin-do is clear in light of the language of each law or its legislative purpose. The provisions of Article 3 of the Constitution can not be seen as being implemented in the whole area of the Korean

In this case, the Farmland Reform Act, which is at issue, shall be deemed to be an Act premised only on the implementation of the procedure for purchase and distribution as prescribed by the same Act, that is, in an area where the administrative power of the Republic of Korea is within the territory of the Republic of Korea. If the farmland in the area is implemented from June 21, 1949, and is already purchased from the date on which the farmland in the area is already purchased, the owner of the farmland residing in the area shall not refuse to claim compensation to the Government in accordance with the provisions of Article 20 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea which provides for the guarantee of property rights. Therefore, this Act was promulgated from the king to the area where the administrative power of the Republic of Korea is within the several welfare districts, and it is reasonable to view that it would bring about the effect of the purchase and distribution of the farmland as a non-existent farmland in the area where the administrative power of the Republic of Korea is excessive. It is realistic interpretation to interpret it as follows.

If so, the problem that the administrative power to implement the procedure for purchase and distribution under the Farmland Reform Act is still related to the maintenance of public order and administrative body of the Suwon Welfare Zone, and in particular is closely related to military operations, it shall be judged in full, and it shall be judged in full. Accordingly, the several welfare districts under the case of the Special Cases concerning the Enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act for the Suwon Welfare Zone have the administrative power to implement the procedure for the purchase and distribution under the Farmland Reform Act as prescribed in Article 6 of the Special Cases Concerning the Farmland Reform Act, because the administrative power to implement the procedure for the purchase and distribution under the Farmland Reform Act is insufficient, and therefore the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act is regarded as effective;

At this time, farmland of a person who does not own own farmland which can be cultivated is farmland stipulated in Article 5 subparagraph 2 (b) of the Farmland Reform Act. Thus, if there are other special circumstances, it is difficult to say that the reason why the owner of farmland in a water welfare zone does not own land is not a person who does not own land due to his/her deprivation of farmland due to June 25 incident, and thus, it is difficult to say that the reason why the owner of farmland in a water welfare zone does not own land is not a person who does not own land under Article 5 subparagraph 2 (b) of the Farmland Reform Act. Nevertheless, since the original judgment takes different opinions as above, it reaches the same conclusion as that of the majority opinion that the original judgment should be reversed, but it is inconsistent with the majority opinion on the explanation of the reason under which

The judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Do-dong and Do-dong and Kimchi-ri and a single-scarbbly lux, the maximum lusium lusium lusium lusium lusium