Whether part of the reclaimed land of public waters was reclaimed as farmland and whether it was purchased from the government by the implementation of the Farmland Reform Act even before the completion authorization of reclamation.

94. Even if part of the reclaimed land of public waters was reclaimed as farmland, it cannot be deemed that it was purchased to the Government before approval of completion of the reclamation work.

Article 6 (1) 8 of the Farmland Reform Act

Park Young-hee and four others

Bluorescent

Seosan support in the first instance court, Daejeon District Court Decision 63Na89 delivered on September 12, 1963

The original judgment shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Daejeon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal by the plaintiffs' representatives are examined.

According to the court below's decision, the court below acknowledged the fact that the land of this case, which was originally public waters based on evidence, was originally purchased from the government as a matter of course, since the non-party Lee Chang-chul constructed a bank and buried a bank 27 years prior to the 27 year grace period, and the non-party Lee Chang-chul and his writers developed and executed the Farmland Reform Act, i.e., the 6,7 years after the 6,07 years following the commencement of reclamation, and it is interpreted that such reclaimed farmland is not farmland but farmland according to the status at the time of the implementation of the Agricultural and Fishing Act, and it is interpreted that the act of the administrative agency, such as the completion inspection of reclamation, is the act of the public waters, and it is judged that the farmland is not farmland, so long as the present state had already been recognized before the enforcement of the Agricultural and Fishing Act, it cannot be said that the farmland was purchased to the government as a matter of course, barring any special

However, in the case of the creation of farmland by reclaiming public waters, the reclamation licensee acquires the ownership of reclaimed land on the date of authorization for completion, and the ownership of reclaimed land is the same as the above, even in the case of ratification of reclamation, so long as it is evident that there was a part of reclaimed land as farmland in October 17, 1960 by the entry of a copy of the land cadastre No. 3, even if part of reclaimed land was reclaimed as farmland, it cannot be deemed that farmland as a result of execution of the Farmland Reform Act was naturally purchased from the reclamation licensee to the government as a matter of course under the proviso of Article 6 (1) 8 of the Farmland Reform Act, but it cannot be deemed that it was purchased from the reclamation licensee before the completion of the reclamation.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges in accordance with Article 406 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Mag-Jak Park Mag-gu