Where Article 23(2) of the Farmland Reform Act is applicable;

The provisions of Article 23 (2) of the Farmland Reform Act shall apply only to the case without interest rate, and where there is interest rate, it shall not apply to the case. Thus, the farmland commission shall consider the defendant as having acknowledged the plaintiff's assertion in accordance with the above provisions on the ground that the defendant is absent who is a water distributor of the land in this case, and the decision that the land in this case is certified as the plaintiff's above discussion shall

Article 23 of the Farmland Reform Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

This case is dismissed.

Expenses for public prosecution shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's attorney shall revoke the original judgment. The defendant's attorney shall deliver to the plaintiff the plaintiff the answer Nos. 316 of the family heading-ri 316 and the answer No. 546 of the family heading-ri. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant in the first and second trials. The defendant's attorney is dismissed.

The plaintiff's legal representative was originally cultivated by the defendant as the plaintiff's ground of claim, but he was recognized as the plaintiff's above soil on September 12, 4284 as the plaintiff's above-mentioned farmland by the farmland committee's decision, and thus, the conditions for the protection of graves were so-called 9 days old in September of each year as to the plaintiff's 1's grave protection, so the plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's 2's 4th anniversary of the plaintiff's request for the plaintiff's 5th anniversary of the plaintiff's own land, the plaintiff's 9th anniversary of the plaintiff's 1's 3th anniversary of the plaintiff's own land, and the plaintiff's 2th anniversary of the plaintiff's request for the above 5th anniversary of the plaintiff's 4th anniversary of the plaintiff's 1's 3th anniversary of the plaintiff's request for the above 5th anniversary of the plaintiff's 1's 2th anniversary of the plaintiff's new 3th of the plaintiff's defense.

In full view of each record of evidence Nos. 1 and 3 and 4, which are acknowledged as being genuine in view of the fact that the Defendant cultivated the land as originally owned by the Plaintiff until the time when the promulgation of the Farmland Reform Act was enforced, there was no commercial dispute between the parties and the entire purport of the party’s pleading, and that there was no dispute in view of the purport of the evidence Nos. 1 and 3 and 4, which were acknowledged as being duly established by considering the purport of the entire purport of the party’s pleading, it is sufficient to recognize that the Defendant continued to cultivate the land after receiving a notice of expected distribution from the head of the Goung-gu, 4284, and received a fixed distribution and paid the repayment amount in that

Therefore, the defendant can be called a legitimate farmer of this case. On May 25, 4283, the plaintiff's attorney asserted that Jeonnam-do Farmland Committee had obtained certification of this case's land as above-mentioned by Jeonnam-do Farmland Committee, and that the defendant's legal representative would have obtained a business trip from Jeonnam-do Farmland Committee to leave the above land over August 25, 200, but it was inevitable to leave the above disease for 8.25,6 months, so the committee's committee did not just recognize this case's land as the plaintiff's above-mentioned land as the ground that it did not simply leave the above date. Thus, according to Gap's evidence No. 1, the plaintiff's legal representative rejected the plaintiff's claim that the defendant had acknowledged this case's land under the provision of Article 23 (2) of the Farmland Reform Act, which is the plaintiff's order of this case, and the plaintiff's legal representative should not be applied to the plaintiff's order of this case's farmland reform committee's order of this case.

Judges Choi Ma-mo (Presiding Judge)