Where the procedures prescribed in Article 12 of the Enforcement Rule of the Farmland Reform Act are not followed with respect to the land, the ownership shall accrue.

It can not be said that the land is subject to purchase because it did not follow the procedures prescribed in Article 12 of the Enforcement Rule of this Act with respect to the land.

Article 6 (1) 7 of the Farmland Reform Act and Article 12 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act

Of the Pacific Papprophals, Sochina, Sympha

The settlement of leap;

Daejeon High Court Decision 60Do1011 delivered on August 18, 1961, Daejeon High Court Decision 200Da1011 delivered on August 18, 1961

Since the original judgment did not obtain the above-mentioned permission on the farmland at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, since the farmland in this case was sold to the State at the same time with the enforcement of the same Act, and the plaintiff lost its ownership, according to Article 6 of the Farmland Reform Act, since the above-mentioned farmland is excluded from the objects of annual purchase, since the farmland excluded from the objects of annual purchase is purchased, the land excluded from the objects of purchase is not subject to the procedure provided for in Article 12 of the Enforcement Rule of the Farmland Reform Act, and the plaintiff who is the owner cannot be deemed to have lost its ownership on the farmland, the original judgment violates the provisions of Article 6 of the Farmland Reform Act by misunderstanding the provisions of the law and misunderstanding the provisions

Justices Lee B-ho (Presiding Justice)