Claim for nullification of revocation of distributed farmland which is not subject to an administrative litigation

A claim to nullify the distribution of farmland is not subject to administrative litigation, but subject to civil litigation.

Articles 22, 23, 24 and 24 of the Farmland Reform Act;

Lee Jae-dae et al.

Head of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 61Da110 delivered on February 27, 1962

We reverse the original judgment.

All of these lawsuits shall be dismissed.

The total costs of litigation shall be borne by the plaintiffs.

The gist of the grounds of appeal by the defendant intervenor's representative is that there was an error of law in the original judgment that does not state any reason in deciding that the revocation of farmland distribution shall be subject to administrative litigation, and that there was an error of law in the decision of the farmland committee's revocation of farmland distribution, and that there was no deliberation on whether the land was already the site at the time when the Farmland Reform Act

First of all, considering whether the claim to nullify the revocation of farmland distribution can be the subject of administrative litigation, the revocation of the disposition of farmland distribution in health room is an administrative disposition and it can be considered as an administrative litigation, not pride. If a lawsuit on the revocation of farmland distribution is recognized as an administrative litigation, it is inevitable to conclude that the disposition of farmland distribution is an administrative disposition, but the lawsuit should be based on the form of administrative litigation, not in the form of a civil litigation, if the lawsuit on the revocation of farmland distribution is recognized as an administrative litigation. Thus, as it is obvious that it is contrary to the tendency of the main case, it is unnecessary to recognize it as an administrative litigation. Therefore, it is unreasonable to recognize that the original judgment is the subject of administrative litigation to confirm the revocation of farmland distribution in this case, without having to make a decision on other points, it is reversed the original judgment, and if the land is not the site at the time of promulgation of the Farmland Improvement Act, it is sufficient to judge, and if the land is not the site at the time of its promulgation, the plaintiffs would be excluded from the existing legal relationship, such as the confirmation of ownership by the cancellation of administrative litigation.

It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges by applying Article 14 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Articles 407 and 96 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Jinjin-man (Presiding Judge) Ma-man, the Mag-man, the Mag-man, the Mag-man,