The term "farmland of a person who has been absent from previous farmland for the purpose of national disturbance and military operations" under Article 5 (2) (b) of the Farmland Reform Act;

Where farmland has been inevitably separated due to any disturbance of the State and the access to the farmland has been restricted due to any operational relationship of the military, it shall not be included in the "farmland of a person who does not have the interest" referred to in paragraph 2 (b) of this Article.

Article 5(2)(b) of the Farmland Reform Act

Kim Won-sik (Attorney Kang Hong-gu, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Park Jong-chul et al. (Attorney Kim Jong-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 4294No1830 delivered on December 20, 1962

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

As to the Defendants’ agent’ ground of appeal No. 1

Even if this farmland is located in the military operations zone, there is no illegality in the original judgment which entered into the plaintiff's claim against the defendants who actually possessed the farmland under the premise that there is no other legal action that is requisitioned by the military authorities or that there is no other restriction on ownership.

In the end, the author argues that the ownership of the Plaintiff on the farmland in this case is limited, and thus, the original judgment is bound to criticize the facts that the original judgment has legally recognized, and cannot be adopted.

This paper is reasonable.

The grounds of appeal No. 2

Although the explanation of the reasoning in the original judgment on the legal concept of farmland of a person who does not do not do so under Article 5 (2) (b) of the Farmland Reform Act is not somewhat clear, it shall not be included in the concept of farmland of a person who does not own own discretion under Article 5 (2) (b) of the same Act, but if the previous farmland has been separated from the previous farmland due to the state change and the access to the previous farmland has been restricted due to military operations relations, it shall not be included in the concept of farmland of a person who does not own discretion under Article 5 (2) (b) of the same Act. Therefore, it shall not be concluded that there is no room for application of the proviso of subparagraph (b) of

Therefore, by applying Article 400 of the Civil Procedure Act, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

The judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) of the two judges of the two Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) shall have the highest leapbal leaps