For the purpose of Article 4 of the Act on Special Measures for the Adjustment of Farmland Reform Projects, the term "unconsumed portion of compensation" means farmland attached facilities, the compensation of which is not paid until March 13, 1968, promulgated and enforced by the same Act.

In this section, the term "unconsumed portion of compensation" means farmland appurtenant facilities, the compensation for which has not been paid until March 13, 1968, promulgated and enforced by the same Act.

Article 4 of the Act on Special Measures for Adjustment of Farmland Reform Projects, Article 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the Agriculture Act

Plaintiff

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 69Na3489 delivered on October 19, 1970, the second instance Seoul High Court Decision 69Na3489 delivered on October 19, 1970

The appeal shall be dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney.

Article 7 (1) 3 of the Farmland Reform Act and Article 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Special Measures for the Adjustment of Farmland Reform Projects, and Article 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act were reviewed in detail, and the original judgment refers to the facilities annexed to the farmland for which the compensation has not been paid until March 13, 1968 when the Act was promulgated and enforced (the provision of Article 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act was interpreted as the above portion of compensation, and it cannot be said that the provisions of the latter part of Article 7 (1) 3 of the Farmland Reform Act were changed). Further, considering the whole purport of the arguments in subparagraph 1, the plaintiff's opinion as to the farmland facilities for which he claimed in this case were the defendant from October 30, 1962 to Article 4 of the same Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the court below accepted Article 80 of the Civil Procedure Act's opinion that the defendant did not claim for all the above measures as the defendant's previous amount of compensation, and the court below's decision that the defendant did not claim for all the above amount of Article 980 of the Civil Procedure Act's opinion.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Ma-dong (Presiding Judge) and Ma-dong B-Jed Han-gu