(a) Whether distribution is presumed to have become final and conclusive through lawful procedures for distribution of farmland, where a repayment ledger has been prepared for farmland;

B. Whether a re-application can be filed after the distribution of farmland is finalized

A. In full view of the provisions of Articles 32 and 38 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act, the distributed farmland shall be determined as distributed farmland when there is no objection to the expiration of a specific period of sight (the period of sight for land within multiple areas shall be 20 days) by preparing a farmland distribution schedule for each farm household based on the farmland distribution procedure for the whole essential and conducting a site investigation through the discussion of the farmland committee at the seat of the farmland committee, and the farmland distribution table for each farm household shall be prepared through the farmland committee at the seat of the farm household and the land shall be completed for ten days (the period of sight for land within multiple areas shall be 20 days). In this case, the repayment ledger shall be prepared and kept at the competent Gu office, competent Eup/Myeon office, Eup/Myeon office, and regional tax office. Therefore, if the repayment ledger for farmland is prepared, the land shall be presumed to have been established as

(b) insofar as the farmland has been established as a distributed farmland for farmers indicated in the distribution schedule of farmland by farm household, there may not be any request for reconsideration under Article 22 of the Farmland Reform Act, unless there are special circumstances.

(a) Article 11 of the Farmland Reform Act; Articles 32 and 38(b) of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act;

Supreme Court Decision 89Meu24865 delivered on October 23, 1990 (Gong1990, 2378) 92Da25472 delivered on March 26, 1993 (Gong1993Sang, 128) 93Da4120 delivered on January 14, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 706) 2. Supreme Court Decision 428Da3166 delivered on January 26, 1956

Plaintiff 1 and 3 others, Attorneys Lee Young-con et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Defendant

Intervenor to this case

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 92Na18756 delivered on December 2, 1993

The judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Civil Procedure District Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, since each of the above real estate in this case was the land partitioned and changed from 904 to 904 in Gyeonggi-gun, Gyeonggi-gun, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed under the name of the deceased non-party 1, such as the original adjudication, and according to such macroficial evidence, the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry notified the deceased non-party 2 of September 30, 1958 that he distributed the above ( Address 1 omitted) 904 square meters to the deceased non-party 2, who was not the part of the plaintiffs, and the above non-party 2 did not appear to have completed the repayment of the above land before the above subdivision on October 16, 1968 (Evidence 4). However, it was difficult to recognize that the above non-party 2 was not the part of the above 90-party 2, which was the part of the above 9-party 2, which was the part of the above 9-party 2, which was the distribution order of the above farmland.

In full view of the provisions of Articles 32 and 38 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act, distributed farmland shall be prepared on the basis of the farmland parcels for all essential matters and conducted a site survey, and shall be prepared through the farmland distribution table for ten days for each farm household (20 days for each land within several areas) through the Gu, Si, Eup, or Myeon, and shall be established as distributed farmland if there is no objection (20 days for each land). In this case, if the repayment register is prepared and kept at the competent office, Eup, or Myeon office, and district tax office, the land shall be presumed to have become final and conclusive, and it shall not be readily rejected if there is no other special evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 89Meu2465, Oct. 23, 190; 2000Da14865, Oct. 14, 1994).

Therefore, it is difficult to readily conclude that the distribution farmland against Nonparty 2 was legally changed from No. 904 to No. 955 on the ground that the fact-finding results on No. 3-1, No. 2, and White Paper No. 3-1, No. 3-2, and the fact-finding results on the White Paper No. 1, No. 3-2, and No. 955.

However, according to the statement in Gap evidence No. 4, since it is recognized that farmland distributed to the above non-party 2 had been corrected from No. 955 to No. 904 to No. 904, the court below should examine the authenticity of the changed repayment ledger and clarify whether the above correction is related to the above distributed farmland re-verification investigation register.

The court below's rejection of the plaintiffs' assertion that non-party 2 had completed the repayment of each of the real estate of this case without reliance on the statement of the repayment ledger (Evidence A No. 4) based on the evidence of the judgment below is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to the presumption of repayment ledger or in the violation of the rules of evidence or in the incomplete hearing. Therefore, the argument on

Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Chocheon-sik (Presiding Justice)