State-owned administrative property may not be distributed as farmland without the procedure of transferring it to the Minister of Finance and Economy pursuant to Article 10 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act.

State-owned administrative property may be distributed as farmland without being transferred to the Minister of Finance and Economy pursuant to Article 10 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act.

Article 4 (2) of the State Property Act, Article 10 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act

Plaintiff 1 and 12 others, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant and one other, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Defendant-Appellee et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee

Seoul High Court Decision 68Na535, 536, 537 Decided February 20, 1969

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs' attorneys' grounds of appeal are examined as follows.

However, the land of this case belongs to the ownership of the non-party 1, a domestic corporation, and is not the property belonging to the government under the military law, but the property acquired by the government for public use pursuant to the military law 75. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the farmland of this case is the property transferred to the Central Land Administrative Agency pursuant to the military law 173 No. 175 of the military law. Therefore, even though the court below did not mention the plaintiffs' assertion on this point, the conclusion of the judgment does not affect the conclusion of the judgment. The argument is groundless.

The grounds of appeal No. 2 are examined.

However, if (1) it is determined to be used as administrative property (2) as administrative property (3) in the event that it is determined to be used as administrative property (public, public or corporate property) by administrative disposition; and since the land in this case is designated as administrative property (railroad) for public use pursuant to military law 75, it is acquired and expropriated; therefore, even if the land was used in a temporary border or applied for permission to change the purpose of use of farmland was made, it cannot be said that the nature of the land in this case as administrative property is the original administrative property. Thus, the court below is justified in holding that the land in this case is an administrative property. The grounds for appeal are groundless.

The grounds of appeal No. 3 are examined.

However, it is not reasonable to conclude that the documentary evidence pointed out in the paper is not related to the land of this case, and that the evidence Nos. 5 is false, and that the land of this case is acquired and expropriated as administrative property as stated above pursuant to the military law No. 75, the court below's decision that the land of this case belongs to administrative property is justifiable. The arguments are groundless.

The grounds of appeal No. 4 are examined.

However, as explained earlier, the land of this case is the state property acquired as administrative property for the purpose of public use and can not be distributed as farmland without the transfer procedure of the Minister of Finance and Economy pursuant to Article 10 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act. Thus, there is no objection to the contrary that the court below's legitimate disposition cannot be admitted.

The grounds of appeal No. 5 are examined.

However, the non-party to the lawsuit cannot be viewed as the only evidence for the plaintiff's assertion even though it is applied after the conclusion of the argument of the court below, and even if it is based on the purpose of proof, it cannot be viewed that there was any error in the theory of lawsuit on this point of the court below. There is no argument.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed without merit, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges by applying Articles 95 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of appeal.

Supreme Court Judge Hongnam-gu (Presiding Judge)