Main Issues
Cases not farmland in the Farmland Reform Act;
Summary of Judgment
At the time of the enforcement of this Act, a disposition already created as a warehouse site shall not be considered as farmland under this Article, and a disposition distributed with a parcel of farmland other than farmland shall not be subject to the procedure of objection.
[Reference Provisions]
Articles 12 and 5 of the Farmland Reform Act
Plaintiff-Appellee
Korea YOGGF
Defendant-Appellant
Kim Jong-soo et al.
Judgment of the lower court
Seoul High Court Decision 60No1597 delivered on April 28, 1961, Seoul High Court Decision 201Da1597 delivered on April 28, 201
Text
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendants.
Reasons
The Defendants’ agent’s grounds of appeal are as listed in the annexed appellate brief.
In order to examine ex officio, it is not an issue of whether the Plaintiff filed a second request or an appeal against the distribution of farmland to the Defendants at any time, but an issue is whether the land at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act is naturally purchased from the Government under Article 5 subparagraph 2 (a) of the same Act as farmland under Article 2 of the same Act. However, according to the records, the Plaintiff is a State-owned Corporation that has performed the business of storing grain, which is a 4273, and purchased the land at a high price of 139,50 won in order to construct a warehouse, and a warehouse site is constructed over 2 years, and it is not clear that the Plaintiff had been able to purchase farmland for the purpose of distributing it to the Government as well as the Plaintiff’s own land for the purpose of distributing it to the remaining Government without any reasonable basis. Accordingly, according to the reasoning that the Plaintiff’s request for improvement of farmland under Article 9 of the Civil Procedure Act cannot be seen as a sale of farmland to the Republic of Korea for the purpose of manufacturing and distribution of farmland to the Plaintiff’s own own land without any legal reasoning.
The judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) the last leapon interference