Even if a prop has been adjusted or judged by applying for the adjustment of the return of a right to cultivate by filing an application for the adjustment of the delivery of a small land before the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, it shall be effective as a side of the farmland in the event that it is not justified by accepting the transfer of the farmland in reality

According to the refund, adjustment or determination of cultivation rights, if the Agricultural Exploitation Act has been enforced before transferring the farmland to the prop in reality, the land shall be purchased to the Government as farmland of a person who does not own it.

Article 5 of the Farmland Reform Act

Plaintiff

Korea

Defendant 1 and one other

Seoul High Court Decision 67Na946 delivered on February 22, 1968, Seoul High Court Decision 67Na946 delivered on February 22, 1968

The original judgment shall be reversed, and

The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal by the plaintiff's agent are examined.

According to the judgment of the court below, the plaintiff cultivated the land in question as small land before the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, and the plaintiff's assertion that the farmland was legally distributed from the government after the Farmland Reform Act was promulgated and enforced, was decided to deliver the land in question to the Seoul District Court for the purpose of using the application for conciliation under the Decree on the Adjustment of Small and Medium Enterprises in the above court's 1948 as small land as the plaintiff and the non-party 1, who had been a prop at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act around 1948, the non-party 2, etc. relative to the plaintiff and the non-party 2, etc. before the enforcement of the Land Reform Act, and the above court's decision was decided to deliver the land as a grave packing, and the plaintiff's appeal against the above decision was dismissed as the plaintiff's objection to the farmland Reform without any legitimate objection to the farmland Reform or re-appeal (the plaintiff's appeal to the Seoul High Court's rejection of the plaintiff's appeal to the above ruling as the plaintiff's rejection of the farmland Reform or re-appeal before September 27, 1949.

However, according to Article 5 subparagraph 2 (b) of the Farmland Reform Act, the term "farmland of a person not self-employed" is naturally purchased by the government through the promulgation of the Farmland Reform Act, and the term "self-arable" in the above provision refers to the cultivation of the farmland by the prop on his own. It is a concept of fact-finding. Thus, even if the prop has adjusted or decided the return of farmland by applying for the adjustment of small land delivery before the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, if the Farmland Reform Act was enforced before the land is delivered in reality by the adjustment or ruling, it cannot be said that the prop is the land being purchased by the government, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that the land is the land is the land purchased by the government, and it cannot be deemed that the disposition distributed to the farmers is null and void, but it cannot be viewed that the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim prior to the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act by accepting the adjustment of the return of farmland rights or the decision of the plaintiff's appeal.

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

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