(a) Whether farmland can be distributed in case where farmland at the time of enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act is set as a land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay without authorization from the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry;

(b) Validity of the disposition of farmland distribution conducted before the enforcement rules of the Farmland Reform Act were promulgated;

As long as land actually used for cultivation at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, it shall not be excluded from the distributed farmland unless it is approved by the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry to change the purpose of use of the land.

Article 6 (1) 4 of the Farmland Reform Act, Article 9 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act, Article 32 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 66Na2939 delivered on March 27, 1968

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal No. 1 by the Plaintiff’s attorney are examined.

The distribution of farmland under the Farmland Reform Act is based on the land phenomenon used for actual cultivation at the time of the enforcement of the same Act, so long as the land is the land actually used for actual cultivation as farmland at the time of the enforcement of the same Act, it cannot be excluded from the distribution of farmland unless the land was designated as a planned land substitution area under the old Joseon City Planning Ordinance, or as the land was designated as a planned land substitution area under Article 6 (1) 4 of the same Act, and Article 9 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, unless the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry grants authorization under Article 6 (1) 4 of the same Act and Article 9 of the same Enforcement Decree of the same Act. In this case, upon examining the statement of Gap evidence 3, the date on which the plaintiff obtained approval for the use of land from Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the date on which the land was made, in light of the statement of evidence No. 5, No. 1949, Feb. 5, 195, and No. 10, the date on which the housing site formation was made cannot be acknowledged as farmland cultivation by the court below as evidence that it did not have been used at the actual farmland cultivation.

The second ground of appeal is examined.

The Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act promulgated on March 25, 1950 and enforced the Enforcement Rule of the same Act promulgated on April 28, 1950. However, even if the distribution disposition against the defendant was conducted on April 11, 1950 prior to the promulgation of the above Enforcement Rule as discussed, if the distribution procedure was conducted on the basis of the land survey conducted on the basis of the land survey and the procedure was conducted on the basis of the settlement procedure of the distributed farmland for each farm household through a resolution of the Farmland Committee on the basis of the site survey, it cannot be deemed that the distribution disposition was null and void a year. If evidence is proved based on the records, the distribution disposition was conducted lawfully through the above procedure, so the judgment of the court below is not justified and opposite.

The grounds of appeal No. 3 are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, although the plaintiff purchased land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay from Seoul Special Metropolitan City on September 19, 1949, it was created as a housing site on March 1960. Thus, at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act on June 24, 1949, the ten year prior to the ten year period, the defendant actually cultivated, and therefore, the defendant was legally distributed from the State on April 10, 1950, and it was not decided to the purport that the housing site was created in 1949, such as the paper, and therefore, it cannot be said that the original judgment was inconsistent with the same reasons as the theory of lawsuit, and there was no error of failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations as to the location of the distributed land, as pointed out.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed without merit. The costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Round Kim Gi-soon