Judgment on the default of repayment and whether there are justifiable grounds;

If the farmland distribution is based on evidence that the amount of redemption was not repaid due to the decline in harvest due to Han Jae-in, it should be recognized that there is a reasonable reason for the unpaid amount of reimbursement.

Article 18 of the Farmland Reform Act

The legal representative of the Republic of Korea shall be the Minister of Justice of the Republic of Korea.

Attorney Lee Young-soo, Counsel Lee Young-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee)

Daegu District Court of the first instance, Daegu High Court of the second instance, Daegu High Court of the second instance, 53 civil Gong330 delivered on November 25, 1953

We reverse the original judgment.

This case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

The grounds of appeal No. 1 are as follows: (a) the lower court’s judgment was based on the facts that the Defendant had been unable to repay the said land for the following reasons: (b) it was found that the Defendant had been unable to repay the said land for the following reasons; and (c) the Defendant had been using the so-called 4th anniversary of the fact that the Defendant had been unable to repay the said land for the 4th anniversary of the fact that the Defendant had been unable to repay the said land for the 4th anniversary of the fact that the Defendant had been unable to repay the said land for the 4th anniversary of the fact that the Defendant had been using the 5th anniversary of the fact that the 4th anniversary of the fact that the Defendant had been unable to repay the said land for the 5th anniversary of the fact that the 4th anniversary of the fact that the 4th anniversary of the fact that the 5th anniversary of the fact that the 4th anniversary of the above fact that the 4th lower court’s original judgment was based on the evidence that there was no illegality of law regarding the Defendant’s right to redeem the said land.

According to the records, No. 2 of the same ground of appeal, this lawsuit is instituted under the name of the Minister of Justice, who is a legal representative of the plaintiff, and all the litigation acts of the plaintiff in the first instance court are conducted by the Kim-J Kim-dae. The so-called litigation performer is interpreted as falling under the litigation representative, so that the right of attorney is proved in writing, and that the document must be attached to the records is clearly provided in the Civil Procedure Act, so the right of attorney of the litigation can not be acknowledged unless there is an addition in this document. In this case, in this case, the copy of the letter of designation of the litigation performer is attached, and it is not possible to find the difference through a single record if it is impossible to prove that the plaintiff is the legitimate attorney of the case, and therefore, in all other litigation acts, it is obvious that the plaintiff is the litigation performer of the first instance court to institute a lawsuit, and thus, it is impossible to dismiss the judgment of the first instance court that accepted the judgment of the court of first instance based on the defendant's ex officio investigation.

In full view of the evidence Gap's evidence in the testimony of the fixed number of witnesses admitted by the court below, the defendant can recognize the fact that the defendant paid five arms in the middle of the short-term 4285 year with the repayment of 5 currency, and considering the evidence Gap's evidence 1 in this fixed number of witnesses, the defendant's 4284 year with the consideration of the evidence Gap's 1, and the defendant's 4284 year's 4284 became subordinate to the lower court's payment of the total amount of harvest during the same year. Therefore, it cannot be said that the defendant's failure to pay in full the repayment of the repayment in the same year without any justifiable reason. Nevertheless, it cannot be said that the court below's interpretation of each evidence as the opposite purport of the judgment of the court below for the plaintiff's request for literacy is against the rules of evidence. It is reasonable to discuss this issue. Accordingly, it is so decided as per Disposition in accordance with Article 407

Justices Kim Jong-chul (Presiding Justice) (Presiding Justice)